Journal of clinical periodontology · 2016
Immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the aesthetic zone using a flapless or a flap-involving approach: a randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Stoupel Janet, Lee Chun-Teh, Glick Jaclyn, Sanz-Miralles Elena, Chiuzan Cody, Papapanou Panos N
Аннотация
AIM: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of flapless (FLS) or flap-involving (F) immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients were randomized following extraction of a non-restorable tooth to a FLS or F group. All implants were immediately placed and provisionalized. We monitored prospectively changes in the peri-implant mucosal margin, the interproximal bone and buccal horizontal ridge at 3, 6 and 12 months.
RESULTS: At 3 months post-surgery, the mean ± SD [median (interquartile range)] mesiobuccal peri-implant gingival margin recession from the pre-surgical soft tissue position amounted to 0.11 ± 0.32 mm [0 (0, 0.5)] in the FLS treatment arm versus 0.43 ± 37 mm [0.5 (0, 0.5)] in the F treatment arm (p = 0.02); corresponding values at the distobuccal surface were 0.11 ± 32 mm [0 (0, 0)] in the FLS arm versus 0.48 ± 0.44 mm [0.5 (0, 1)] in the F arm (p = 0.01). No other significant differences in soft or hard tissue remodelling between the treatment arms were observed at 3, 6 or 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Flapless and a flap-involving immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the aesthetic zone resulted in comparable remodelling of the peri-implant mucosa, interproximal bone and buccal ridge at 6 and 12 months.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients were randomized following extraction of a non-restorable tooth to a FLS or F group. All implants were immediately placed and provisionalized. We monitored prospectively changes in the peri-implant mucosal margin, the interproximal bone and buccal horizontal ridge at 3, 6 and 12 months.
RESULTS: At 3 months post-surgery, the mean ± SD [median (interquartile range)] mesiobuccal peri-implant gingival margin recession from the pre-surgical soft tissue position amounted to 0.11 ± 0.32 mm [0 (0, 0.5)] in the FLS treatment arm versus 0.43 ± 37 mm [0.5 (0, 0.5)] in the F treatment arm (p = 0.02); corresponding values at the distobuccal surface were 0.11 ± 32 mm [0 (0, 0)] in the FLS arm versus 0.48 ± 0.44 mm [0.5 (0, 1)] in the F arm (p = 0.01). No other significant differences in soft or hard tissue remodelling between the treatment arms were observed at 3, 6 or 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Flapless and a flap-involving immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the aesthetic zone resulted in comparable remodelling of the peri-implant mucosa, interproximal bone and buccal ridge at 6 and 12 months.