Clinical and radiographic intrasubject comparison of implants placed with or without guided bone regeneration: 15-year results

被引:49
|
作者
Benic, Goran I. [1 ]
Bernasconi, Mira [2 ]
Jung, Ronald E. [1 ]
Haemmerle, Christoph H. F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Ctr Dent Med, Clin Fixed & Removable Prosthodont & Dent Mat Sci, Zurich, Switzerland
[2] Private Practice, Zug, Switzerland
关键词
bone; bone augmentation; bone regeneration; bone substitute; CBCT; clinical; cone beam computed tomography; dental implant; graft; guided bone regeneration; human; long term; membrane; mucosa; radiology; soft tissue; BEAM COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; IN-VITRO ASSESSMENT; DENTAL IMPLANTS; BARRIER MEMBRANES; AESTHETIC ZONE; BUCCAL BONE; FOLLOW-UP; AUGMENTATION; TITANIUM; IMMEDIATE;
D O I
10.1111/jcpe.12665
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim: To test whether implants placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) differ from implants placed without GBR regarding survival rate, interproximal marginal bone level (MBL), and dimensions of buccal bone and mucosa. Material and Methods: Twenty-three patients treated 15 years earlier were included. Machined implants had been inserted following one of the two procedures: (i) with simultaneous GBR, which involved grafting with particulate deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), autogenous bone (AB), or a mixture of the two and defect covering with a native collagen membrane (CM) (GBR group) and (ii) standard implant placement without GBR (control group). One GBR and one control implant in each patient were selected for analysis. At 15 years, the dimensions of buccal bone and mucosa were measured with cone beam computed tomography. The interproximal MBL was evaluated at 5 and 15 years on periapical radiographs. Results: The 15-year survival rate amounted to 95.6% for GBR implants and to 94.1% for control implants. At 15 years, interproximal MBL measured 1.44 +/- 0.84 mm for the GBR group and 1.69 +/- 0.84 mm for the control group. From the 5-to the 15-year examination, the loss of interproximal MBL reached 0.23 +/- 0.70 mm for the GBR group and 0.28 +/- 0.63 mm for the control group. At 15 years, buccal MBL measured 1.98 +/- 0.98 mm for GBR implants and 2.19 +/- 1.29 mm for control implants. None of these values reached statistical significant differences between the groups. In cases in which GBR involved grafting with DBBM, GBR implants achieved approximately 0.3-0.4 mm higher mean values in buccal bone dimensions and mucosal level in comparison to control implants. In contrast, when GBR was performed by grafting with AB without DBBM, implants rendered less favourable results in buccal bone and mucosa dimensions than the control implants. Conclusions: Implants placed with simultaneous GBR using particulate DBBM and/or AB in combination with CM did not significantly differ from implants completely placed into pristine bone with respect to 15-year implant survival, interproximal bone levels, and dimensions of buccal bone and mucosa. The machined-surface implants placed both into native bone and sites augmented by GBR exhibited stable interproximal bone levels.
引用
收藏
页码:315 / 325
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Study on Hydrophilic Dental Implants Placed with and without Bone Augmentation Procedures
    Zumstein, Thomas
    Sennerby, Lars
    [J]. CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2016, 18 (03) : 498 - 506
  • [2] Clinical and radiographic comparison of implants in regenerated or native bone: 5-year results
    Benic, Goran I.
    Jung, Ronald E.
    Siegenthaler, David W.
    Haemmerle, Christoph H. F.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2009, 20 (05) : 507 - 513
  • [3] Ridge Volume Stability of Maxillary Anterior Implants Placed with Simultaneous Lateral Guided Bone Regeneration during Healing: a Radiographic Analysis
    Ye, Guo Hua
    Duan, Deng Hui
    Wang, En Bo
    [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2021, 24 (04): : 251 - 256
  • [4] Comparison of Clinical, Radiographic, and Immunologic Inflammatory Parameters around Crestally and Subcrestally Placed Dental Implants: 5-Year Retrospective Results
    Al Amri, Mohammad D.
    Alfadda, Sara A.
    Labban, Nawaf Y.
    Alasqah, Mohammed N.
    Alshehri, Fahad A.
    Al-Rasheed, Abdulaziz S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2018, 27 (01): : 3 - 9
  • [5] Comparison of clinical and radiographic status around dental implants placed in patients with and without prediabetes: 1-year follow-up outcomes
    Al Amri, Mohammad D.
    Abduljabbar, Tariq S.
    Al-Kheraif, Abdulaziz A.
    Romanos, Georgios E.
    Javed, Fawad
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2017, 28 (02) : 231 - 235
  • [6] A 4- to 5-Year Retrospective Clinical and Radiographic Study of Neoss Implants Placed with or without GBR Procedures
    Zumstein, Thomas
    Billstroem, Camilla
    Sennerby, Lars
    [J]. CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2012, 14 (04) : 480 - 490
  • [7] CLINICAL-EVALUATION OF GUIDED BONE REGENERATION AT EXPOSED PARTS OF BRANEMARK DENTAL IMPLANTS WITH AND WITHOUT BONE ALLOGRAFT
    MATTOUT, P
    NOWZARI, H
    MATTOUT, C
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 1995, 6 (03) : 189 - 195
  • [8] Ten- to 15-Year Clinical and Radiographic Results for a Compression Molded Monoblock Elliptical Acetabular Component
    Poultsides, Lazaros A.
    Sioros, Vasilis
    Anderson, John A.
    Bruni, Danilo
    Beksac, Burak
    Sculco, Thomas P.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2012, 27 (10): : 1850 - 1856
  • [9] Esthetics and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Implants Placed with Guided Bone Regeneration and Complete Native Bone: A Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial
    Jonker, Brend P.
    Wolvius, Eppo B.
    van der Tas, Justin T.
    Tahmaseb, Ali
    Pijpe, Justin
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2020, 35 (02) : 406 - 414
  • [10] Clinical and Radiographic Outcome of Implants Placed Using Stereolithographic Guided Surgery: A Prospective Monocenter Study
    D'haese, Jan
    Vervaeke, Stijn
    Verbanck, Nathalie
    De Bruyn, Hugo
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2013, 28 (01) : 205 - 215