MedElevator
Войти в исследования Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2022
Immediate implant placement utilizing vestibular socket therapy versus early implant placement with contour augmentation for rehabilitation of compromised extraction sockets in the esthetic zone: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
ElAskary Abdelsalam, Elfana Ahmed, Meabed Moatez, Abd-ElWahab Radi Iman, Akram Mahmoud, Fawzy El-Sayed Karim
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The present randomized controlled trial compares for the first time the vestibular socket therapy (VST) to the contour augmentation technique in the management of compromised fresh extraction sockets in the maxillary esthetic zone, regarding mid-facial soft tissue changes (primary outcome), mesial and distal papillae dimensions, horizontal soft tissue changes and labial bone plate thickness at apical, middle and coronal levels (secondary outcomes) over 1-year.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty participants with single nonrestorable maxillary teeth in the esthetic zone were randomized into two groups; VST (test; n = 20) utilizing vestibular access for guided bone regeneration (GBR) with immediate implant placement, or contour augmentation (control; n = 20) undergoing an initial healing period followed by implant placement with GBR through a conventional access flap.
RESULTS: All implants were successfully osseo-integrated, except for one implant in the test group. VST showed significantly less mid-facial soft tissue changes of -0.53 ± 1.17 mm versus -1.87 ± 0.69 mm in the control group (p < 0.001). Similarly, changes in mesial papilla (test = -0.64 ± 0.95 mm, control = -1.20 ± 0.81 mm), distal papilla (test = -0.56 ± 1.17 mm, control = -1.26 ± 0.63 mm), horizontal soft-tissue (test = -0.82 ± 0.95 mm, control = -1.84 ± 0.88 mm; p < 0.05) were significantly less in VST. Intra-group comparisons demonstrated a significant increase in labial bone thickness, with no differences between groups. Regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between VST as well as increased coronal bone thickness with the reduction in mid-facial soft-tissue changes.
CONCLUSION: The VST showed less soft-tissue changes and could represent an innovative technique for implant placement in the maxillary esthetic zone. Both techniques showed a high implant survival rate and increased bone thickness after 12 months.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty participants with single nonrestorable maxillary teeth in the esthetic zone were randomized into two groups; VST (test; n = 20) utilizing vestibular access for guided bone regeneration (GBR) with immediate implant placement, or contour augmentation (control; n = 20) undergoing an initial healing period followed by implant placement with GBR through a conventional access flap.
RESULTS: All implants were successfully osseo-integrated, except for one implant in the test group. VST showed significantly less mid-facial soft tissue changes of -0.53 ± 1.17 mm versus -1.87 ± 0.69 mm in the control group (p < 0.001). Similarly, changes in mesial papilla (test = -0.64 ± 0.95 mm, control = -1.20 ± 0.81 mm), distal papilla (test = -0.56 ± 1.17 mm, control = -1.26 ± 0.63 mm), horizontal soft-tissue (test = -0.82 ± 0.95 mm, control = -1.84 ± 0.88 mm; p < 0.05) were significantly less in VST. Intra-group comparisons demonstrated a significant increase in labial bone thickness, with no differences between groups. Regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between VST as well as increased coronal bone thickness with the reduction in mid-facial soft-tissue changes.
CONCLUSION: The VST showed less soft-tissue changes and could represent an innovative technique for implant placement in the maxillary esthetic zone. Both techniques showed a high implant survival rate and increased bone thickness after 12 months.