International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany) · 2022
Comparison of maxillary tuberosity and palatal donor sites for soft tissue augmentation at implant placement: A pilot controlled clinical study.
Clinical StudyСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kotsailidi Elli Anna, Tatakis Dimitris N, Chen Yo-Wei, Caton Jack G, Ercoli Carlo, Barmak Abdul Basir, Tsigarida Alexandra
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of soft tissue augmentation during one-stage implant placement using grafts harvested from the hard palate or the maxillary tuberosity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this pilot controlled clinical study, non-smoking adults with a single missing tooth in the anterior or premolar region and adequate ridge dimensions for implant placement were enrolled. Each received a single implant and connective tissue graft harvested either from the hard palate (n = 10) or the maxillary tuberosity (n = 10). Digital impressions were taken prior to treatment (T0) and then 2 and 12 months postoperatively (T1 and T2, respectively). The primary study outcome was changes in horizontal ridge dimension. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone level changes over time, pain levels in the first 2 postoperative weeks (W1 and W2) and pink aesthetic score and patient-reported outcome measures at T2. Data analysis included repeated measures analysis of variance for intergroup comparisons.
RESULTS: The horizontal ridge dimension increased significantly in both groups (P ≤ 0.002) at all apico-coronal levels examined, with no significant intergroup differences. There was also no significant intergroup difference in marginal bone level changes (P = 0.376). The hard palate group experienced higher pain levels in the donor site compared to the tuberosity group at W1 (P = 0.023). The pink aesthetic score and patient-reported outcome measures were similar between groups at T2.
CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue augmentation during one-stage implant placement results in significant increases in the horizontal ridge dimension.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this pilot controlled clinical study, non-smoking adults with a single missing tooth in the anterior or premolar region and adequate ridge dimensions for implant placement were enrolled. Each received a single implant and connective tissue graft harvested either from the hard palate (n = 10) or the maxillary tuberosity (n = 10). Digital impressions were taken prior to treatment (T0) and then 2 and 12 months postoperatively (T1 and T2, respectively). The primary study outcome was changes in horizontal ridge dimension. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone level changes over time, pain levels in the first 2 postoperative weeks (W1 and W2) and pink aesthetic score and patient-reported outcome measures at T2. Data analysis included repeated measures analysis of variance for intergroup comparisons.
RESULTS: The horizontal ridge dimension increased significantly in both groups (P ≤ 0.002) at all apico-coronal levels examined, with no significant intergroup differences. There was also no significant intergroup difference in marginal bone level changes (P = 0.376). The hard palate group experienced higher pain levels in the donor site compared to the tuberosity group at W1 (P = 0.023). The pink aesthetic score and patient-reported outcome measures were similar between groups at T2.
CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue augmentation during one-stage implant placement results in significant increases in the horizontal ridge dimension.