Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2026
Peri-Implant Tissue Stability Following Guided Bone Regeneration With Bioceramic: A Multicenter One-Year Cohort Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Yulan, Zhang Jian, Wu Runfa, Fu Gang, Xu Yan, Yi Zhe, Li Qiang, Zhao Yangsheng, Shen Ming, Zhang Yufeng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This multicenter prospective cohort study follows a 1-year period after a previously published randomized controlled trial, comparing the radiographic and clinical outcomes of implants placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) using bioceramic (BC) versus xenograft (BO).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from the previous trial were recalled 1 year after crown delivery. The follow-up data focused on the buccal bone stability evaluated by CBCT and implant survival rate, Probing Depth (PD), Bleeding on Probing (BOP), Plaque Index (PI), and patient satisfaction through Oral Health Impact Profile-5 (OHIP-5).
RESULTS: Out of 150 enrolled patients in a previous trial, a total of 97 patients completed the 1-year follow-up: 44 in the BC group and 53 in the BO group. The implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. Change in horizontal buccal bone thickness (△HBBT) at 1 year post-crown delivery versus immediately post-surgery was -0.28 ± 0.10 mm for the BC group and -0.91 ± 0.09 mm (mean ± standard error) for the BO group, with the BC group exhibiting less bone resorption along the implant than the BO group (p = 0.0000). No significant differences were observed in PI, BOP, or PD. Patient satisfaction remained high in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: GBR with bioceramic demonstrated stable radiographical bone on the buccal side of the implant 1 year after crown delivery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from the previous trial were recalled 1 year after crown delivery. The follow-up data focused on the buccal bone stability evaluated by CBCT and implant survival rate, Probing Depth (PD), Bleeding on Probing (BOP), Plaque Index (PI), and patient satisfaction through Oral Health Impact Profile-5 (OHIP-5).
RESULTS: Out of 150 enrolled patients in a previous trial, a total of 97 patients completed the 1-year follow-up: 44 in the BC group and 53 in the BO group. The implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. Change in horizontal buccal bone thickness (△HBBT) at 1 year post-crown delivery versus immediately post-surgery was -0.28 ± 0.10 mm for the BC group and -0.91 ± 0.09 mm (mean ± standard error) for the BO group, with the BC group exhibiting less bone resorption along the implant than the BO group (p = 0.0000). No significant differences were observed in PI, BOP, or PD. Patient satisfaction remained high in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: GBR with bioceramic demonstrated stable radiographical bone on the buccal side of the implant 1 year after crown delivery.