MedElevator
Войти в исследования Clinical oral implants research · 2026
Prevalence of Buccal Ridge Concavities Following Implant Placement With Contour Bone Augmentation: A Cross-Sectional Study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Vollath Sophia E, Wiedmer Giorgina M, Raabe Clemens, Fonseca Manrique, Chappuis Vivianne, Asparuhova Maria B, Zhao Ningbo, Couso-Queiruga Emilio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term prevalence of buccal ridge concavity (BRC) following implant placement with simultaneous contour bone augmentation (CBA).
METHODS: Adult patients with at least one single-tooth non-molar implant-supported prosthesis and no diagnosis of peri-implantitis were included in this exploratory cross-sectional study. Clinical, digital, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were collected. Intra-oral scans were analyzed at multiple apico-coronal levels with dedicated software to assess the presence of BRC.
RESULTS: A total of 186 patients (211 implants) were analyzed over a mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 1.4 years. BRC was observed in 100% of sites and patients, with a mean value of -0.83 ± 0.45 mm at the mucosal margin, -0.62 ± 0.39 mm at 3 mm apical, and -0.47 ± 0.32 mm at 5 mm apical. Multivariate analysis at 3 mm apical showed greater BRC in males (+0.165 mm, p = 0.003), premolar sites (+0.110 mm, p = 0.03), and when implants ≥ 12 mm were placed (+0.141 mm, p = 0.008). The greater the keratinized mucosa, the smaller the BRC, and the greater the crestal bone loss, the higher the BRC. PROMs indicated high satisfaction with esthetics, function, treatment expectations, tolerability of the overall procedure, and oral hygiene; OHIP-14 scores were low (2 ± 4).
CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement with CBA does not fully restore alveolar ridge volume in non-molar sites, with all cases showing BRC, particularly at the most coronal aspect. However, patient-reported satisfaction remained high.
METHODS: Adult patients with at least one single-tooth non-molar implant-supported prosthesis and no diagnosis of peri-implantitis were included in this exploratory cross-sectional study. Clinical, digital, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were collected. Intra-oral scans were analyzed at multiple apico-coronal levels with dedicated software to assess the presence of BRC.
RESULTS: A total of 186 patients (211 implants) were analyzed over a mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 1.4 years. BRC was observed in 100% of sites and patients, with a mean value of -0.83 ± 0.45 mm at the mucosal margin, -0.62 ± 0.39 mm at 3 mm apical, and -0.47 ± 0.32 mm at 5 mm apical. Multivariate analysis at 3 mm apical showed greater BRC in males (+0.165 mm, p = 0.003), premolar sites (+0.110 mm, p = 0.03), and when implants ≥ 12 mm were placed (+0.141 mm, p = 0.008). The greater the keratinized mucosa, the smaller the BRC, and the greater the crestal bone loss, the higher the BRC. PROMs indicated high satisfaction with esthetics, function, treatment expectations, tolerability of the overall procedure, and oral hygiene; OHIP-14 scores were low (2 ± 4).
CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement with CBA does not fully restore alveolar ridge volume in non-molar sites, with all cases showing BRC, particularly at the most coronal aspect. However, patient-reported satisfaction remained high.