Marginal Bone Resorption Around Dental Implants Placed in Alveolar Socket Preserved Sites: A 5 Years Follow-up Study

被引:3
|
作者
Beretta, Mario [1 ]
Maiorana, Carlo [1 ]
Manfredini, Mattia [1 ]
Signorino, Fabrizio [1 ]
Poli, Pier Paolo [1 ]
Vinci, Raffaele [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Milan, Fdn IRCCS Ca Granda Osped Maggiore Policlin, Implant Ctr Edentulism & Jawbone Atrophies, Maxillofacial Surg & Odontostomatol Unit, Via Commenda 10, I-20122 Milan, Italy
[2] Univ Vita Salute San Raffaele, IRCCS San Raffaele Hosp, Dept Dent, I-20132 Milan, Italy
来源
关键词
Bone regeneration; Bone substitutes; Socket preservation; Tooth loss; Mucograft-seal; RIDGE PRESERVATION; TOOTH EXTRACTION; GRAFTING MATERIALS; MEMBRANE; TRIAL; AUGMENTATION; METAANALYSIS; XENOGRAFT; WOUNDS; WIDTH;
D O I
10.1007/s12663-020-01367-2
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim The present study evaluated the clinical and radiological stability of hard and soft tissues following alveolar socket preservation (ASP) procedure with a follow-up of 5 year from implant insertion. Materials and methods The initial sample consisted of seven patients who underwent single tooth extraction and ASP procedure by means of demineralized bovine bone mineral particles covered with a porcine-derived non-cross-linked collagen matrix (CM). Each patient received a submerged single implant in the healed site. Mesial and distal peri-implant marginal bone resorption (MBR) rates were assessed radiographically at 1 year (T-1) and 5 years (T-2) after implant placement (baseline value). Results and Statistics No dropouts occurred up to 5 years. AtT1, the MBR was 0.08 +/- 0.16 mm at the mesial aspect and 0.1 +/- 0.12 mm at the distal aspect. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.867). AtT2, the mesial MBR was 0.15 +/- 0.17 mm and the distal MBR was 0.11 +/- 0.14 mm, with a non-statistically significant difference (P = 0.532). Therefore, no statistically significant differences were detected comparing mesial and distal MBR at any time point. With respect to the intra-group comparisons, no differences were observed comparing the different study periods within each variable. Indeed, the comparison betweenT(0),T(1)andT(2)was non-statistically significant at both mesial (P = 0.06) and distal (P = 0.06) aspects. After 5 years, the volume of the soft tissues appeared clinically well maintained with a natural aspect around dental implants and adjacent teeth. Conclusion ASP using demineralized bovine bone mineral in combination with CM proved to be an effective technique to maintain stable dimensional volumes of both hard and soft tissues.
引用
收藏
页码:381 / 388
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Marginal Bone Resorption Around Dental Implants Placed in Alveolar Socket Preserved Sites: A 5 Years Follow-up Study
    Mario Beretta
    Carlo Maiorana
    Mattia Manfredini
    Fabrizio Signorino
    Pier Paolo Poli
    Raffaele Vinci
    [J]. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, 2021, 20 : 381 - 388
  • [2] Marginal bone resorption around dental implants placed in grafted sinuses; an up-to-30-month clinical and radiological follow-up
    Ungor, Cem
    Guven, Anil
    Songur, Timur
    Dayisoylu, Ezher
    Kurt, Hakan
    Tosun, Emre
    Senel, Figen Cizmeci
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2013, 63 (09) : 1124 - 1128
  • [3] Bone resorption around dental implants placed in grafted sinuses:: Clinical and radiologic follow-up after up to 4 years
    Maiorana, C
    Sigurtà, D
    Mirandola, A
    Garlini, G
    Santoro, F
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2005, 20 (02) : 261 - 266
  • [4] The Effect of Age of Titanium Dental Implants on Implant Survival and Marginal Bone Resorption: A 5-Year Retrospective Follow-Up Study
    Cigerim, Levent
    Kaplan, Volkan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2020, 46 (05) : 475 - 479
  • [5] Long-term follow-up of dental implants placed in a grafted alveolar cleft: evaluation of alveolar bone height
    Takahashi, Tetsu
    Inai, Tetsuji
    Kochi, Shoko
    Fukuda, Masayuki
    Yamaguchi, Tai
    Matsui, Keiko
    Echigo, Seishi
    Watanabe, Makoto
    [J]. ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTOLOGY, 2008, 105 (03): : 297 - 302
  • [7] Long Term Follow-Up of Dental Implants Placed in Autologous Onlay Bone Graft
    Schwartz-Arad, Devorah
    Ofec, Ronen
    Eliyahu, Galit
    Ruban, Angela
    Sterer, Nir
    [J]. CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2016, 18 (03) : 449 - 461
  • [8] What Does Bone Corticalization around Dental Implants Mean in Light of Ten Years of Follow-Up?
    Kozakiewicz, Marcin
    Skorupska, Malgorzata
    Wach, Tomasz
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (12)
  • [9] Peri-implant bone resorption around implants placed in alveolar bone subjected to distraction osteogenesis
    Perez-Sayans, Mario
    Fernandez-Gonzalez, Beatriz
    Martin, Manuel Somoza
    Gandara-Rey, Jose M.
    Garcia-Garcia, Abel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2008, 66 (04) : 787 - 790
  • [10] Long-Term Marginal Bone Loss in 217 Machined-Surface Implants Placed in 68 Patients with 5 to 9 Years of Follow-up: A Retrospective Study
    Mir-Mari, Javier
    Mir-Orfila, Pedro
    Valmaseda-Castellon, Eduard
    Gay-Escoda, Cosme
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2012, 27 (05) : 1163 - 1169