Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2021
Comparison of the soft and hard peri-implant tissue dimensional changes around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus using xenograft: A randomized controlled clinical 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.
Atef Mohamed, El Barbary Ahmed, Dahrous Mona Salah El-D, Zahran Amr Fouad
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Compare the dimensional changes of the peri-implant soft and hard tissues clinically and radiographically around single immediate implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus filling the buccal gap with xenograft.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with a single non-restorable tooth in the esthetic zone replaced with an immediate implant were randomly assigned either to the socket shield technique (test) or to grafting the buccal gap with xenograft (control). The vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption were measured 6-months following implant placement. The esthetic outcomes were evaluated by assessing the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the amount of midfacial mucosal alteration, in addition to patient satisfaction assessment through a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) based questionnaire 1-year following implant restoration.
RESULTS: The present study showed that the socket shield group yielded significantly less vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption of 0.35 (±0.62) mm and 0.29 (±0.34) mm compared to 1.71 (±1.02) mm and 1.45 (±0.72) mm in the xenograft group respectively. Also, there was a significantly greater midfacial mucosal recession in the xenograft group of 0.466 (±0.58) mm compared to midfacial mucosal coronal migration of 0.45 (±0.75) mm in the socket shield group. However, there was no statistically significant difference regarding the total PES and patient satisfaction in both treatment groups.
CONCLUSION: The socket shield technique can preserve hard and soft peri-implant tissues following immediate implant placement. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03684356).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with a single non-restorable tooth in the esthetic zone replaced with an immediate implant were randomly assigned either to the socket shield technique (test) or to grafting the buccal gap with xenograft (control). The vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption were measured 6-months following implant placement. The esthetic outcomes were evaluated by assessing the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and the amount of midfacial mucosal alteration, in addition to patient satisfaction assessment through a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) based questionnaire 1-year following implant restoration.
RESULTS: The present study showed that the socket shield group yielded significantly less vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption of 0.35 (±0.62) mm and 0.29 (±0.34) mm compared to 1.71 (±1.02) mm and 1.45 (±0.72) mm in the xenograft group respectively. Also, there was a significantly greater midfacial mucosal recession in the xenograft group of 0.466 (±0.58) mm compared to midfacial mucosal coronal migration of 0.45 (±0.75) mm in the socket shield group. However, there was no statistically significant difference regarding the total PES and patient satisfaction in both treatment groups.
CONCLUSION: The socket shield technique can preserve hard and soft peri-implant tissues following immediate implant placement. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03684356).