Janet Stoupel1, Chun-Teh Lee1, Jaclyn Glick1, Elena Sanz-Miralles1, Cody Chiuzan2, Panos N Papapanou1. 1. Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
AIM: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of flapless (FLS) or flap-involving (F) immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty-nine patients were randomized following extraction of a non-restorable tooth to a FLS or F group. All implants were immediately placed and provisionalized. We monitored prospectively changes in the peri-implant mucosal margin, the interproximal bone and buccal horizontal ridge at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: At 3 months post-surgery, the mean ± SD [median (interquartile range)] mesiobuccal peri-implant gingival margin recession from the pre-surgical soft tissue position amounted to 0.11 ± 0.32 mm [0 (0, 0.5)] in the FLS treatment arm versus 0.43 ± 37 mm [0.5 (0, 0.5)] in the F treatment arm (p = 0.02); corresponding values at the distobuccal surface were 0.11 ± 32 mm [0 (0, 0)] in the FLS arm versus 0.48 ± 0.44 mm [0.5 (0, 1)] in the F arm (p = 0.01). No other significant differences in soft or hard tissue remodelling between the treatment arms were observed at 3, 6 or 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Flapless and a flap-involving immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the aesthetic zone resulted in comparable remodelling of the peri-implant mucosa, interproximal bone and buccal ridge at 6 and 12 months.
RCT Entities:
AIM: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of flapless (FLS) or flap-involving (F) immediate placement and provisionalization of single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients were randomized following extraction of a non-restorable tooth to a FLS or F group. All implants were immediately placed and provisionalized. We monitored prospectively changes in the peri-implant mucosal margin, the interproximal bone and buccal horizontal ridge at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: At 3 months post-surgery, the mean ± SD [median (interquartile range)] mesiobuccal peri-implant gingival margin recession from the pre-surgical soft tissue position amounted to 0.11 ± 0.32 mm [0 (0, 0.5)] in the FLS treatment arm versus 0.43 ± 37 mm [0.5 (0, 0.5)] in the F treatment arm (p = 0.02); corresponding values at the distobuccal surface were 0.11 ± 32 mm [0 (0, 0)] in the FLS arm versus 0.48 ± 0.44 mm [0.5 (0, 1)] in the F arm (p = 0.01). No other significant differences in soft or hard tissue remodelling between the treatment arms were observed at 3, 6 or 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Flapless and a flap-involving immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the aesthetic zone resulted in comparable remodelling of the peri-implant mucosa, interproximal bone and buccal ridge at 6 and 12 months.
Authors: Sara Bakkali; María Rizo-Gorrita; Manuel-María Romero-Ruiz; José Luis Gutiérrez-Pérez; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Maria Ángeles Serrera-Figallo Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 3.573