Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025
Stability of Augmented Bone and Its Influencing Factors After Simultaneous Guided Bone Regeneration With Implant Placement in the Posterior Mandible: A Retrospective Study.
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.
Chen Xiaoyu, Qi Wenting, Wang Siyuan, Xu Antian, Lu Hongye, Shen Xiaoting, He Fuming
Аннотация
AIM: To analyse the stability of augmented bone and its influencing factors after simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) with implant placement in the posterior mandible.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 165 implants in 102 patients were included. General information, peri-implant soft-tissue parameters and complications were recorded. Cone-beam computed tomography images at preoperative (T0), immediate postoperative (T1), post-healing (T2) and the latest follow-up (T3) were collected. Buccal bone width, height, bone distance (BD) and augmented bone volume (ABV) were assessed. Bone augmentation range was classified into inside-contour (IC) group and outside-contour (OC) group based on BD values. Factors influencing the augmented bone volume resorption rate (ABV%) were analysed.
RESULTS: During the follow-up period of 12-88 months, the mean ABV% was 47.56% ± 20.29%, predominantly occurring between T1 and T2. The OC group showed higher ABV% compared to the IC group (p < 0.001). BD of the IC and 0-1 mm OC groups was less than 0, while BD of the 1-2 and > 2 mm OC groups was near 0 at T3. Bone augmentation range (p < 0.001), non-contained defects (p = 0.001) and 2-mm healing abutments (p = 0.008) significantly influenced ABV%.
CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous GBR with implant placement in the posterior mandible provided predictable volumetric stability of the augmented bone. OC grafts resorbed towards individual phenotypical dimensions, whereas 1-2 mm over-augmentation might optimise contour maintenance. Non-contained defects compromised volumetric stability, while the 2-mm healing abutments enhanced stability compared to cover screws.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 165 implants in 102 patients were included. General information, peri-implant soft-tissue parameters and complications were recorded. Cone-beam computed tomography images at preoperative (T0), immediate postoperative (T1), post-healing (T2) and the latest follow-up (T3) were collected. Buccal bone width, height, bone distance (BD) and augmented bone volume (ABV) were assessed. Bone augmentation range was classified into inside-contour (IC) group and outside-contour (OC) group based on BD values. Factors influencing the augmented bone volume resorption rate (ABV%) were analysed.
RESULTS: During the follow-up period of 12-88 months, the mean ABV% was 47.56% ± 20.29%, predominantly occurring between T1 and T2. The OC group showed higher ABV% compared to the IC group (p < 0.001). BD of the IC and 0-1 mm OC groups was less than 0, while BD of the 1-2 and > 2 mm OC groups was near 0 at T3. Bone augmentation range (p < 0.001), non-contained defects (p = 0.001) and 2-mm healing abutments (p = 0.008) significantly influenced ABV%.
CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous GBR with implant placement in the posterior mandible provided predictable volumetric stability of the augmented bone. OC grafts resorbed towards individual phenotypical dimensions, whereas 1-2 mm over-augmentation might optimise contour maintenance. Non-contained defects compromised volumetric stability, while the 2-mm healing abutments enhanced stability compared to cover screws.