Literature DB >> 22141358

A randomized clinical trial to evaluate and compare implants placed in augmented versus non-augmented extraction sockets: 3-year results.

Antonio Barone1, Bruno Orlando, Luciano Cingano, Simone Marconcini, Giacomo Derchi, Ugo Covani.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The alveolar ridge undergoes reabsorption and atrophy subsequent to tooth removal and thus exhibits a wide range of dimensional changes. Preservation of the alveolar crest after tooth extraction is essential to enhance the surgical site before implant fixture placement. The aim of this randomized clinical study is to investigate and compare the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant insertion, as well as the success rate and marginal bone loss for implants placed in the grafted sites versus those placed in naturally healed sites.
METHODS: Forty patients with ≥1 hopeless tooth were randomly allocated to: 1) a test group, receiving extraction and grafting corticocancellous porcine bone; and 2) a control group, receiving extraction without any graft. After 7 months of healing, implants were inserted in each of the sites. The implants were submerged and loaded after 4 months with metal-ceramic rehabilitation. The follow-up included evaluation of implant diameter and length, the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant placement, implant failure, and marginal bone level changes. All patients were followed over a 3-year period.
RESULTS: One implant failed in the control group at the second stage of surgery (6 months after placement); one implant failed in the test group after 2 years of loading. The cumulative implant success rate at the 3-year follow-up visit reached 95% for both groups. No statistically significant differences were detected for marginal bone changes between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that implants placed into grafted extraction sockets exhibited a clinical performance similar to implants placed into non-grafted sites in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss. However, grafted sites allowed placement of larger implants and required less augmentation procedures at implant placement when compared to naturally healed sites.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22141358     DOI: 10.1902/jop.2011.110205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Periodontol        ISSN: 0022-3492            Impact factor:   6.993


  15 in total

Review 1.  Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  G Avila-Ortiz; S Elangovan; K W O Kramer; D Blanchette; D V Dawson
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 6.116

2.  Effect of flapless ridge preservation with two different alloplastic materials in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects-volumetric and linear changes.

Authors:  Nadja Naenni; Vitor Sapata; Stefan P Bienz; Minas Leventis; Ronald E Jung; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Daniel S Thoma
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Dimensional changes following alveolar ridge preservation in the posterior area using bovine-derived xenografts and collagen membrane compared to spontaneous healing: a 6-month randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Vincenzo Iorio-Siciliano; Luca Ramaglia; Andrea Blasi; Paolo Bucci; Paolo Nuzzolo; Francesco Riccitiello; Michele Nicolò
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 4.  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.

Authors:  Momen A Atieh; Nabeel H M Alsabeeha; Alan G T Payne; Warwick Duncan; Clovis M Faggion; Marco Esposito
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-05-28

5.  Regenerative properties of collagenated porcine bone grafts in human maxilla: demonstrative study of the kinetics by synchrotron radiation microtomography and light microscopy.

Authors:  Alessandra Giuliani; Giovanna Iezzi; Serena Mazzoni; Adriano Piattelli; Vittoria Perrotti; Antonio Barone
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.

Authors:  Momen A Atieh; Nabeel Hm Alsabeeha; Alan Gt Payne; Sara Ali; Clovis M Jr Faggion; Marco Esposito
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-04-26

7.  Ridge preservation using an in situ hardening biphasic calcium phosphate (β-TCP/HA) bone graft substitute-a clinical, radiological, and histological study.

Authors:  Ashish Kakar; Bappanadu H Sripathi Rao; Shashikanth Hegde; Nikhil Deshpande; Annette Lindner; Heiner Nagursky; Aditya Patney; Harsh Mahajan
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2017-06-22

8.  Peri-Implant Bone Loss at Implants Placed in Preserved Alveolar Bone Versus Implants Placed in Native Bone: A Retrospective Radiographic Study.

Authors:  Johann Bui Quoc; Aurélie Vang; Laurence Evrard
Journal:  Open Dent J       Date:  2018-07-31

Review 9.  Dental Implant Outcomes in Grafted Sockets: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ausra Ramanauskaite; Tiago Borges; Bruno Leitão Almeida; Andre Correia
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2019-09-05

10.  Crestal bone loss around dental implants after implantation of Tricalcium phosphate and Platelet- Rich Plasma: A comparative study.

Authors:  Sravani Uppala; Anuj Singh Parihar; Varsha Modipalle; Litto Manual; Vinni Mary Oommen; Pallavi Karadiguddi; Parkhi Gupta
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2020-01-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.