Clinical oral implants research · 2018
Immediate placement and provisionalization of implants in the aesthetic zone with or without a connective tissue graft: A 1-year randomized controlled trial and volumetric study.
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.
van Nimwegen Wouter G, Raghoebar Gerry M, Zuiderveld Elise G, Jung Ronald E, Meijer Henny J A, Mühlemann Sven
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To volumetrically compare peri-implant mid-facial soft tissue changes in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone, with or without a connective tissue graft.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients were included. All implants were placed immediately after extraction. After randomization, in one group, a connective tissue graft (test group, n = 30) was inserted at the buccal aspect of the implant. The other group (control group, n = 30) received no connective tissue graft. Clinical parameters, digital photographs and conventional impressions were obtained before extraction (Tpre ) and at 12 months following definitive crown placement (T12 ). The casts were digitized by a laboratory scanner, and a volumetric analysis was performed between Tpre and T12 .
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients in each group were available for analysis at T12 . Volumetric change, transformed to a mean (±SD) change in thickness, was -0.68 ± 0.59 mm (test) and -0.49 ± 0.54 mm (control) with a non-significant difference between groups (p = .189). The mid-facial mucosa level was significantly different between both groups (p = .014), with a mean (±SD) change of +0.20 ± 0.70 mm (test) and -0.48 ± 1.13 mm (control). The Pink Esthetic Score was similar between both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a CTG in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone did not result in less mucosal volume loss after 12 months, leading to the assumption that a CTG cannot fully compensate for the underlying facial bone loss, although a significantly more coronally located mid-facial mucosa level was found when a CTG was performed.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients were included. All implants were placed immediately after extraction. After randomization, in one group, a connective tissue graft (test group, n = 30) was inserted at the buccal aspect of the implant. The other group (control group, n = 30) received no connective tissue graft. Clinical parameters, digital photographs and conventional impressions were obtained before extraction (Tpre ) and at 12 months following definitive crown placement (T12 ). The casts were digitized by a laboratory scanner, and a volumetric analysis was performed between Tpre and T12 .
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients in each group were available for analysis at T12 . Volumetric change, transformed to a mean (±SD) change in thickness, was -0.68 ± 0.59 mm (test) and -0.49 ± 0.54 mm (control) with a non-significant difference between groups (p = .189). The mid-facial mucosa level was significantly different between both groups (p = .014), with a mean (±SD) change of +0.20 ± 0.70 mm (test) and -0.48 ± 1.13 mm (control). The Pink Esthetic Score was similar between both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a CTG in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone did not result in less mucosal volume loss after 12 months, leading to the assumption that a CTG cannot fully compensate for the underlying facial bone loss, although a significantly more coronally located mid-facial mucosa level was found when a CTG was performed.