Literature DB >> 16137084

Minimally invasive flapless implant surgery: a prospective multicenter study.

William Becker1, Moshe Goldstein, Burton E Becker, Lars Sennerby.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Placement of implants with a minimally invasive flapless approach has the potential to minimize crestal bone loss, soft tissue inflammation, and probing depth adjacent to implants and to minimize surgical time.
PURPOSE: The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate implant placement using a minimally invasive one-stage flapless technique up to 2 years.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients ranging in age from 24 to 86 years were recruited from three clinical centers (Tucson, AZ, USA; Tel Aviv, Israel; Göteborg, Sweden). Seventy-nine implants were placed. A small, sharp-tipped guiding drill was used to create a precise, minimally invasive initial penetration through the mucosa and into bone (Nobel Biocare, Yorba, Linda, CA, USA). Implants were placed according to the manufacturer's instructions, with minimal countersinking. The parameters evaluated were total surgical time, implant survival, bone quality and quantity, implant position by tooth type, depth from mucosal margin to bone crest, implant length, probing depth, inflammation, and crestal bone changes. At 2 years, for 79 implants placed in 57 patients, the cumulative success rate using a minimally invasive flapless method was 98.7%, indicating the loss of 1 implant. Changes in crestal bone for 77 baseline and follow-up measurements were insignificant (radiograph 1: mean 0.7 mm, SD 0.5 mm, range 2.8 mm, minimum 0.2 mm, maximum 3.0 mm; radiograph 2: mean 0.8 mm, SD 0.5 mm, range 3.4 mm, minimum 0.12 mm, maximum 3.5 mm). Using descriptive statistics for 78 patients (one implant lost), mean changes for probing depth and inflammation were clinically insignificant. The average time for implant placement was 28 minutes (minimum 10 minutes, maximum 60 minutes, SD 13.1 minutes). Average depth from mucosal margin to bone was 3.3 mm ( SD 0.7 mm, minimum 2 mm, maximum 5 mm, range 3 mm). Thirty-two implants were placed in maxillae and 47 in mandibles.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that following diagnostic treatment planning criteria, flapless surgery using a minimally invasive technique is a predictable procedure. The benefits of this procedure are lessened surgical time; minimal changes in crestal bone levels, probing depth, and inflammation; perceived minimized bleeding; and lessened postoperative discomfort.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16137084     DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00071.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res        ISSN: 1523-0899            Impact factor:   3.932


  26 in total

1.  Minimally invasive transmucosal insertion and immediate provisonalization of one-piece implant in partially edentulous posterior mandible.

Authors:  Narpatsingh Rajput; Siyad K P; Rathinavelu G; Chandrasekaran S C; Jumshad Mohammed
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-09-10

2.  Increasing volume of vestibular soft tissues in flapless implant surgery through a modified connective punch technique: a controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  M Andreasi Bassi; C Andrisani; S Lico; F Silvestre; M Gargari; C Arcuri
Journal:  Oral Implantol (Rome)       Date:  2016-11-13

Review 3.  Flapless dental implant surgery and use of cone beam computer tomography guided surgery.

Authors:  D P Laverty; J Buglass; A Patel
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 1.626

4.  MIDAS (Minimally Invasive Drilling And Styptic) protocol - A modified approach to treating patients under therapeutic anticoagulants.

Authors:  Yazad Gandhi; Neel Bhatavdekar
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2019-04-30

5.  Open flap versus flapless placement of dental implants. A randomized controlled pilot trial.

Authors:  Enric Jané-Salas; Xavier Roselló-LLabrés; Enric Jané-Pallí; Siddharth Mishra; Raúl Ayuso-Montero; José López-López
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 2.634

6.  Nasal floor augmentation for the reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla: a case series.

Authors:  Moustafa El-Ghareeb; Joan Pi-Anfruns; Mohammed Khosousi; Tara Aghaloo; Peter Moy
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 1.895

7.  Comparative evaluation of soft and hard tissue changes following endosseous implant placement using flap and flapless techniques in the posterior edentulous areas of the mandible-a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Divya Kumar; G Sivaram; B Shivakumar; Tss Kumar
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2018-05-05

8.  Labial and lingual/palatal bone thickness of maxillary and mandibular anteriors in human cadavers in Koreans.

Authors:  Ji Young Han; Gyu Un Jung
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 2.614

9.  An in-office, cost effective technique for measuring width of bone using intra-oral periapical radiographs in occlusal projection.

Authors:  Shrikar R Desai; I Karthikeyan; Rika Singh
Journal:  J Indian Soc Periodontol       Date:  2013-01

10.  Multiple teeth replacement with endosseous one-piece yttrium-stabilized zirconia dental implants.

Authors:  Andrea-Enrico Borgonovo; Alberto Fabbri; Virna Vavassori; Rachele Censi; Carlo Maiorana
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2012-11-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.