International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024
Investigating the effects of buccal bone fenestration on maxillary anterior implants: A 1- to 6-year retrospective study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Zhou Mi, Wang Yixin, Huangphattarakul Vicha, Man Yi, Qu Yili
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of buccal bone fenestration on maxillary anterior implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent implant placement in the maxillary anterior region between January 2017 and December 2021 and had received final restorations 1 to 6 years prior were screened for inclusion in the present study. Propensity score matching was used to match the two-group sample size and reduce the influence of potential confounding factors. Generalised linear mixed models were employed to evaluate the correlation between buccal bone fenestration and peri-implant marginal bone loss.
RESULTS: A total of 42 patients with 50 implants were included in the study, 16 of whom had buccal bone fenestration (group 1) and 26 of whom did not (group 2). No implant failures occurred, resulting in a cumulative implant survival rate of 100.0%. There was no statistically significant difference between the pink aesthetic scores for the two groups. The mean marginal bone loss was 0.44 ± 0.46 mm for group 1 and 0.33 ± 0.32 mm for group 2 (P > 0.05). Buccal bone fenestration was not the influencing factor of marginal bone loss (P > 0.05). Marginal bone loss was greater around implants used to replace canines than those inserted to replace central incisors (P < 0.05). Far less marginal bone loss occurred around immediately loaded implants than delayed implants with cover screws (P < 0.05). When there is sufficient keratinised mucosa around the implant, marginal bone loss will decrease significantly (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, buccal bone fenestration defects around dental implants cannot influence peri-implant bone loss.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors report no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent implant placement in the maxillary anterior region between January 2017 and December 2021 and had received final restorations 1 to 6 years prior were screened for inclusion in the present study. Propensity score matching was used to match the two-group sample size and reduce the influence of potential confounding factors. Generalised linear mixed models were employed to evaluate the correlation between buccal bone fenestration and peri-implant marginal bone loss.
RESULTS: A total of 42 patients with 50 implants were included in the study, 16 of whom had buccal bone fenestration (group 1) and 26 of whom did not (group 2). No implant failures occurred, resulting in a cumulative implant survival rate of 100.0%. There was no statistically significant difference between the pink aesthetic scores for the two groups. The mean marginal bone loss was 0.44 ± 0.46 mm for group 1 and 0.33 ± 0.32 mm for group 2 (P > 0.05). Buccal bone fenestration was not the influencing factor of marginal bone loss (P > 0.05). Marginal bone loss was greater around implants used to replace canines than those inserted to replace central incisors (P < 0.05). Far less marginal bone loss occurred around immediately loaded implants than delayed implants with cover screws (P < 0.05). When there is sufficient keratinised mucosa around the implant, marginal bone loss will decrease significantly (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, buccal bone fenestration defects around dental implants cannot influence peri-implant bone loss.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors report no conflicts of interest relating to this study.