Journal of clinical periodontology · 2018
Evaluation of peri-implant marginal tissues around tissue-level and bone-level implants in patients with a history of chronic periodontitis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Vianna Tiago T, Taiete Tiago, Casarin Renato C V, Giorgi Maria C C, Aguiar Flávio Henrique B, Silvério Karina G, Nociti Júnior Francisco H, Sallum Enilson A, Casati Márcio Z
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical and radiographic characteristics in peri-implant marginal tissues in patients with a history of chronic periodontitis, rehabilitated using tissue-level or bone-level implants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using a split-mouth design, 20 patients with a history of chronic periodontitis were selected and received two different implants, tissue-level group (n = 20) and the bone-level group (n = 20). Peri-implant probing depth, relative peri-implant mucosal margin position, relative peri-implant clinical attachment level, peri-implant plaque index and peri-implant bleeding on probing were evaluated at prosthesis installation, 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after implant loading. Radiographic marginal bone level was evaluated at implant insertion, prosthesis installation, 6 and 24 months after implant loading.
RESULTS: The mean difference of peri-implant marginal bone resorption from implant installation to 24 months in function was 0.75 ± 1.12 mm for the tissue-level group and 0.70 ± 0.72 mm for the bone-level group. No statistically significant difference was found between groups at all assessment periods for clinical and radiographic peri-implant evaluation.
CONCLUSION: Under a rigid supportive therapy, both approaches performed likewise regarding clinical and radiographic parameters for rehabilitation of patients with a history of chronic periodontitis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using a split-mouth design, 20 patients with a history of chronic periodontitis were selected and received two different implants, tissue-level group (n = 20) and the bone-level group (n = 20). Peri-implant probing depth, relative peri-implant mucosal margin position, relative peri-implant clinical attachment level, peri-implant plaque index and peri-implant bleeding on probing were evaluated at prosthesis installation, 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after implant loading. Radiographic marginal bone level was evaluated at implant insertion, prosthesis installation, 6 and 24 months after implant loading.
RESULTS: The mean difference of peri-implant marginal bone resorption from implant installation to 24 months in function was 0.75 ± 1.12 mm for the tissue-level group and 0.70 ± 0.72 mm for the bone-level group. No statistically significant difference was found between groups at all assessment periods for clinical and radiographic peri-implant evaluation.
CONCLUSION: Under a rigid supportive therapy, both approaches performed likewise regarding clinical and radiographic parameters for rehabilitation of patients with a history of chronic periodontitis.