Literature DB >> 30578550

Buccal bone thickness adjacent to virtual dental implants following guided bone regeneration.

Daniel J Phillips1,2, Dane T Swenson1,2, Thomas M Johnson1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Crestal bone thickness is a critical determinant of peri-implant tissue stability. This retrospective observational study sought to quantify the buccal bone thickness achieved adjacent to virtual dental implants following guided bone regeneration (GBR) surgery and evaluate the influence of patient- and procedure-related variables on buccal bone thickness.
METHODS: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images acquired from patients who had undergone GBR surgery between July 1, 2012, and November 7, 2016, were used for this analysis. In all cases, the GBR procedure involved a dense polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) barrier membrane and a mineralized cortical particulate freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA). Eighty-four virtual dental implants were placed at planned locations using CBCT images from 84 patients, and the adjacent buccal bone thickness was measured at each site. The effects of sex, age, estimated baseline ridge width, number of missing teeth in site, site type (tooth-bounded versus terminal position in arch), dental arch (mandibular or maxillary), arch location (anterior or posterior), smoking status, titanium reinforcement in the membrane, membrane fixation, and tenting screw use were assessed.
RESULTS: The mean post-GBR buccal bone thickness adjacent to virtual dental implants was 2.24 ± 1.01 mm. Fifty-nine of 84 virtual implants (70%) exhibited buccal bone thickness > 1.9 mm. GBR sites using membrane fixation produced significantly greater virtual implant buccal bone thickness than those without membrane fixation (2.31 ± 0.96 versus 1.15 ± 1.25 mm, P = 0.012). Virtual implant buccal bone thickness also exhibited moderate correlation with estimated initial ridge width (r = 0.43, P < 0.0001). The alveolar ridge at 81 virtual implant sites (96%) was classified as good or satisfactory, meaning dental implants were actually placed at these sites, with or without additional grafting at implant placement.
CONCLUSIONS: Observations in this study suggest GBR procedures using dPTFE membranes and FDBA result in favorable ridge dimensions for dental implant placement in most cases. However, additional augmentation at implant surgery may be necessary at ≈ 30% of sites, if buccal bone thickness > 1.9 mm is intended. © Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  allografts; alveolar ridge augmentation; cone-beam computed tomography; dental implants; polytetrafluoroethylene; treatment outcome

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30578550     DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0304

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


  4 in total

1.  Analysis of Alveolar Bone Morphology of the Maxillary Central and Lateral Incisors with Normal Occlusion.

Authors:  Ji-Eun Lee; Chang Yoon Jung; Yoonji Kim; Yoon-Ah Kook; Youngkyung Ko; Jun-Beom Park
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 2.430

2.  Vestibular bone thickness of the mandible in relation to the mandibular canal-a retrospective CBCT-based study.

Authors:  Silvio Valdec; Jan M Borm; Stephanie Casparis; Georg Damerau; Michael Locher; Bernd Stadlinger
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2019-11-15

3.  Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Simultaneous Alveolar Ridge Augmentation by Means of Preformed Titanium Meshes at Dehiscence-Type Peri-Implant Defects: A Prospective Pilot Study.

Authors:  Carlo Maiorana; Mattia Manfredini; Mario Beretta; Fabrizio Signorino; Andrea Bovio; Pier Paolo Poli
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 3.623

4.  The influence of initial defect morphology of alveolar ridge on volumetric change of grafted bone following guided bone regeneration in the anterior maxilla region: an exploratory retrospective study.

Authors:  Yuan Li; Xiao-Meng Zhang; Shu-Jiao Qian; Shi-Chong Qiao; Hong-Chang Lai; Jun-Yu Shi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-12
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.