Minimally invasive flapless vs. flapped approach for single implant placement: a 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial

被引:23
|
作者
Wang, Feng [1 ]
Huang, Wei [1 ]
Zhang, Zhiyong [1 ]
Wang, Haowei [1 ]
Monje, Alberto [2 ]
Wu, Yiqun [1 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Shanghai Key Lab Stomatol, Dept Oral Implantol,Peoples Hosp 9, 500 Quxi Rd, Shanghai 200011, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Michigan, Sch Dent, Dept Periodont & Oral Med, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
关键词
dental implant; flapless; minimally invasive; randomized clinical trials; single implant; KERATINIZED MUCOSA; DENTAL IMPLANTS; TISSUE PUNCH; SURGERY; SOFT; OUTCOMES; HEALTH; WIDTH;
D O I
10.1111/clr.12875
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: The purpose of this 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial was to assess the differences in implant survival rates, soft tissue preservation, patient centered outcome and crestal bone changes applying the minimally invasive (MI) flapless approach for single implant placement compared to flapped implant surgery (FS). Materials and methods: Subjects eligible for this study were randomly assigned into two groups: MI or FS. Items of evaluation were the following: implant installation position, soft tissue healing, post-surgical pain, soft tissue outcome, marginal bone loss (MBL), and implant survival rate. Results: Forty subjects (14 women and 26 men, 20 in MI group and 20 in FS group with a mean of 39 +/- 13.2 years old) were included in the study. None of the implants demonstrated dehiscence or loss during the follow-up. Subjects in MI group showed significantly lower post-surgical pain and significantly less wound healing index scores at 1-week follow-up. The width of keratinized mucosa decreased from a mean of 4.2 +/- 1.6 mm pre-surgically to 3.7 +/- 1.1 mm at crown delivery but remained stable at 2-year follow-up in MI group. At every appointment in the study, no statistical significant difference of PD and MBL was found between the two groups. Conclusion: Compared with FS, single implants placed applying the MI technique in selected subjects showed advantages in improving patient comfort and decreasing post-implant placement soft tissue reaction. Meanwhile, implants with MI approach have the same level of MBL and high success rates as FS procedure at 2-year follow-up. The deduction of keratinized mucosa is very limited and the width of KM remained stable with MI approach at 2-year follow-up.
引用
收藏
页码:757 / 764
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Immediate single-tooth implant placement in bony defect sites: A 10-year randomized controlled trial
    Meijer, Henny J. A.
    Slagter, Kirsten W.
    Gareb, Barzi
    Hentenaar, Diederik F. M.
    Vissink, Arjan
    Raghoebar, Gerry M.
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2024,
  • [32] CLINICAL EFFICACY OF ALENDRONATE TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS: A 2-YEAR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
    Nishii, T.
    Tamura, S.
    Shiomi, T.
    Sakai, T.
    Takao, M.
    Yoshikawa, H.
    Sugano, N.
    OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE, 2012, 20 : S284 - S284
  • [33] Six vs. Twelve Hours of Foley Catheter Placement for Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Lassey, Sarah C.
    Haber, Hilary
    Kanbergs, Alexa N.
    Robinson, Julian N.
    Little, Sarah E.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 224 (02) : S32 - S32
  • [34] The influence of submerged healing abutment or subcrestal implant placement on soft tissue thickness and crestal bone stability. A 2-year randomized clinical trial
    Linkevicius, Tomas
    Puisys, Algirdas
    Linkevicius, Rokas
    Alkimavicius, Jonas
    Gineviciute, Evelina
    Linkeviciene, Laura
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2020, 22 (04) : 497 - 506
  • [35] Immediate implant placement influenced by musical flow: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial
    Pellicer, Lorenzo Esteban
    Rubio, Jose Luis Martinez
    Casanas, Elisabeth
    Villar, Antonio Conde
    BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2024, 24 (01):
  • [36] Robotic-Arm-Assisted vs Conventional Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. The 2-Year Clinical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial
    Gilmour, Alisdair
    MacLean, Angus D.
    Rowe, Philip J.
    Banger, Matthew S.
    Donnelly, Iona
    Jones, Bryn G.
    Blyth, Mark J. G.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2018, 33 (07): : S109 - S115
  • [37] Encode Protocol Versus Conventional Protocol for Single-Implant Restoration: A Prospective 2-Year Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial
    Abduo, Jaafar
    Lee, Choy Lin
    Sarfarazi, Golnaz
    Xue, Bradley
    Judge, Roy
    Darby, Ivan
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2021, 47 (01) : 36 - 43
  • [38] Open vs Minimally Invasive Scarf Osteotomy for Hallux Valgus Correction: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Torrent, Josep
    Baduell, Albert
    Vega, Jordi
    Malagelada, Francesc
    Luna, Rodrigo
    Rabat, Eduard
    FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2021, 42 (08) : 982 - 993
  • [39] The accuracy of static vs. dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery in single tooth space: A randomized controlled trial
    Kaewsiri, Dechawat
    Panmekiate, Soontra
    Subbalekha, Keskanya
    Mattheos, Nikos
    Pimkhaokham, Atiphan
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2019, 30 (06) : 505 - 514
  • [40] Immediate versus delayed implant placement after anterior single tooth extraction: the timing randomized controlled clinical trial
    Tonetti, Maurizio S.
    Cortellini, Pierpaolo
    Graziani, Filippo
    Cairo, Francesco
    Lang, Niklaus P.
    Abundo, Roberto
    Conforti, Gian Paolo
    Marquardt, Siegfried
    Rasperini, Giulio
    Silvestri, Maurizio
    Wallkamm, Beat
    Wetzel, Anton
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2017, 44 (02) : 215 - 224