K Patel1, N Mardas, N Donos. 1. Restorative Dentistry, UCLH Eastman Dental Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the interproximal radiographic bone levels and the survival/success rate of dental implants placed in alveolar ridges previously preserved with a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine xenograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Alveolar ridge preservation was performed in 27 patients who were randomly assigned in two groups. In the test group (n = 14), the extraction socket was treated with a synthetic bone graft Straumann Bone Ceramic; SBC and a collagen barrier, whereas in the control group (n = 13) a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and the same collagen barrier were used. After 8 months of healing, titanium dental implants with a hydrophilic surface were placed in the preserved ridges. During surgery, 9/13 implants in the SBC group and 8/12 implants in the DBBM group presented with either dehiscence or fenestration defects and required additional bone augmentation. The implants were loaded at 4 months following placement and were followed up for 1 year post-loading. Interproximal radiographic bone levels were evaluated in standardized periapical radiographs at loading and 1 year post-loading. Probing pocket depth, gingival recession and bleeding upon probing were recorded at implants and neighbouring teeth. The success rate of the implants was evaluated according to criteria set by Albrektsson et al. (1986). RESULTS: The survival rate of the implants in both groups was 100% at 1-year post-loading. No statistically significant differences in any of the clinical and radiographic measurements were detected between the two groups (P < 0.05). The success rate of the implants was 84.6% (11/13) in the SBC group and 83.3% (10/12) in the DBBM group. CONCLUSION:Equivalent success and survival rates (as well as similar radiographic changes) of dental implants placed in alveolar ridges previously preserved with SBC or DBBM should be anticipated.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the interproximal radiographic bone levels and the survival/success rate of dental implants placed in alveolar ridges previously preserved with a synthetic bone substitute or a bovine xenograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Alveolar ridge preservation was performed in 27 patients who were randomly assigned in two groups. In the test group (n = 14), the extraction socket was treated with a synthetic bone graft Straumann Bone Ceramic; SBC and a collagen barrier, whereas in the control group (n = 13) a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and the same collagen barrier were used. After 8 months of healing, titanium dental implants with a hydrophilic surface were placed in the preserved ridges. During surgery, 9/13 implants in the SBC group and 8/12 implants in the DBBM group presented with either dehiscence or fenestration defects and required additional bone augmentation. The implants were loaded at 4 months following placement and were followed up for 1 year post-loading. Interproximal radiographic bone levels were evaluated in standardized periapical radiographs at loading and 1 year post-loading. Probing pocket depth, gingival recession and bleeding upon probing were recorded at implants and neighbouring teeth. The success rate of the implants was evaluated according to criteria set by Albrektsson et al. (1986). RESULTS: The survival rate of the implants in both groups was 100% at 1-year post-loading. No statistically significant differences in any of the clinical and radiographic measurements were detected between the two groups (P < 0.05). The success rate of the implants was 84.6% (11/13) in the SBC group and 83.3% (10/12) in the DBBM group. CONCLUSION: Equivalent success and survival rates (as well as similar radiographic changes) of dental implants placed in alveolar ridges previously preserved with SBC or DBBM should be anticipated.
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
Authors: Redouane Messous; Bruno Henriques; Hassan Bousbaa; Filipe S Silva; Wim Teughels; Júlio C M Souza Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 3.573
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