Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2022
Bone regeneration using titanium plate stabilization for the treatment of peri-implant bone defects: A retrospective radiologic pilot study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Duan Deng-Hui, Wang Hom-Lay, Xiao Wu-Cai, Liu Zheng, Wang En-Bo
Аннотация
AIM: To 3-dimensional radiographically assess the effect of titanium plate in guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of peri-implant ridge defects in esthetic zone.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with buccal peri-implant defects in the maxillary esthetic zone were treated with GBR using xenograft, autogenous bone, and collagen membrane. Subjects were divided into two groups: control (conventional GBR, 10 patients with 16 implants) and test (GBR with an adjunctive titanium plate; nine patients with 15 implants). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images obtained immediately after and 5-7 months following GBR were used to assess buccal crestal bone level (BBL) and buccal bone thickness (BBT) at different implant levels.
RESULTS: Thirty-one implants in 19 patients were evaluated. Titanium plate exposure occurred in three cases (33.33%) of the test group. After 5-7 months, the mean BBL was located 1.48 ± 0.71 mm coronal to the platform in the test group and 0.90 ± 3.03 mm coronal to the platform in the control group (p = 0.03). The mean over all BBT (BBT-M) was 4.16 ± 0.48 mm in the test group and 2.38 ± 0.97 mm in the control group (p < 0.01). More resorption occurred in the control group than in the test group regarding mean BBL (3.00 ± 3.11 mm vs. 0.78 ± 0.79 mm, respectively; p = 0.04), BBT-M change (1.87 ± 1.59 mm vs. 0.56 ± 0.33 mm, respectively; p = 0.02), and percentage change in BBT-M (40.69 ± 24.01% vs. 11.53 ± 5.86%, respectively; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: In the short-term, titanium plate-enhanced GBR maintained ridge dimensions better than conventional GBR did.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with buccal peri-implant defects in the maxillary esthetic zone were treated with GBR using xenograft, autogenous bone, and collagen membrane. Subjects were divided into two groups: control (conventional GBR, 10 patients with 16 implants) and test (GBR with an adjunctive titanium plate; nine patients with 15 implants). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images obtained immediately after and 5-7 months following GBR were used to assess buccal crestal bone level (BBL) and buccal bone thickness (BBT) at different implant levels.
RESULTS: Thirty-one implants in 19 patients were evaluated. Titanium plate exposure occurred in three cases (33.33%) of the test group. After 5-7 months, the mean BBL was located 1.48 ± 0.71 mm coronal to the platform in the test group and 0.90 ± 3.03 mm coronal to the platform in the control group (p = 0.03). The mean over all BBT (BBT-M) was 4.16 ± 0.48 mm in the test group and 2.38 ± 0.97 mm in the control group (p < 0.01). More resorption occurred in the control group than in the test group regarding mean BBL (3.00 ± 3.11 mm vs. 0.78 ± 0.79 mm, respectively; p = 0.04), BBT-M change (1.87 ± 1.59 mm vs. 0.56 ± 0.33 mm, respectively; p = 0.02), and percentage change in BBT-M (40.69 ± 24.01% vs. 11.53 ± 5.86%, respectively; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: In the short-term, titanium plate-enhanced GBR maintained ridge dimensions better than conventional GBR did.