Caroliene M Meijndert1, Gerry M Raghoebar1, Leo Meijndert2, Kees Stellingsma1, Arjan Vissink1, Henny J A Meijer1,3. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Nij Smellinghe Hospital, Drachten, The Netherlands. 3. Dental School, Department of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess the 10-year effects of three different augmentation techniques (augmentation with chin bone, augmentation with chin bone plus a membrane and augmentation with a bone substitute plus a membrane) for implant-supported restorations in the maxillary aesthetic region regarding clinical and radiographic parameters, and patient-centred outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ninety-three patients requesting single tooth replacement and presenting with a horizontal bone deficiency were included. After augmentation, 93 implants were placed. Clinical variables, standardized radiographs and photographs and patient questionnaires were analysed to assess the impact of the various augmentation techniques 1 month (T1 ), 12 months (T12 ) and 120 months (T120 ) after final crown placement. RESULTS:10-years implant survival was 95.7% and did not differ between the groups neither were significant differences observed in the other treatment outcomes assessed. Peri-implant bone loss was low, viz. 0.48 ± 1.19 mm (mesial) and 0.30 ± 1.24 mm (distal) at T120 . Loss of midbuccal marginal gingival level at T120 was 0.32 ± 0.83 mm. Mean overall satisfaction at T120 was 8.6 with 98.6% of the patients satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient centred outcomes were very favourable after 10 years and did not differ between the groups with different bone augmentation techniques.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess the 10-year effects of three different augmentation techniques (augmentation with chin bone, augmentation with chin bone plus a membrane and augmentation with a bone substitute plus a membrane) for implant-supported restorations in the maxillary aesthetic region regarding clinical and radiographic parameters, and patient-centred outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients requesting single tooth replacement and presenting with a horizontal bone deficiency were included. After augmentation, 93 implants were placed. Clinical variables, standardized radiographs and photographs and patient questionnaires were analysed to assess the impact of the various augmentation techniques 1 month (T1 ), 12 months (T12 ) and 120 months (T120 ) after final crown placement. RESULTS: 10-years implant survival was 95.7% and did not differ between the groups neither were significant differences observed in the other treatment outcomes assessed. Peri-implant bone loss was low, viz. 0.48 ± 1.19 mm (mesial) and 0.30 ± 1.24 mm (distal) at T120 . Loss of midbuccal marginal gingival level at T120 was 0.32 ± 0.83 mm. Mean overall satisfaction at T120 was 8.6 with 98.6% of the patients satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient centred outcomes were very favourable after 10 years and did not differ between the groups with different bone augmentation techniques.
Authors: Stefan P Bienz; Michael Payer; Jenni Hjerppe; Jürg Hüsler; Norbert Jakse; Patrick R Schmidlin; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung; Daniel S Thoma Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 5.021
Authors: Siwen Wang; Weiyi Wu; Yuhua Liu; Xinzhi Wang; Lin Tang; Pengyue You; Jianmin Han; Bowen Li; Yi Zhang; Mei Wang Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 3.411