PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the influence of removing or not removing a prosthesis after regenerative surgery on peri-implant defects. METHODS: Two different groups were compared (Group 1: removing the prosthesis; Group 2: maintaining the prosthesis), analyzing radiographic bone filling (n = 32 implants) after regenerative treatment in periapical radiographs. The peri-implant defects were measured before and after regenerative treatment using Bio-Oss® (Geistlich Pharma, Wohhusen, Switzerland) and a reabsorbable collagen membrane (Jason®, Botis, Berlin, Germany), the healing period was two years after peri-implant regenerative surgery. Statistical analysis was performed, and a Chi square test was carried out. To determine the groups that made the difference, corrected standardized Haberman residuals were used, and previously a normality test had been applied; therefore, an ANOVA or Mann-Whitney U test was used for the crossover with the non-normal variables in Group 1 and Group 2. RESULTS: The results obtained suggest that a regenerative procedure with xenograft, resorbable membrane, and detoxifying the implant surface with hydrogen peroxide form a reliable technique to achieve medium-term results, obtaining an average bone gain at a radiographic level of 2.84 mm (±1.78 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was not removed after peri-implant bone regenerative therapy and 2.18 mm (±1.41 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was removed during the healing period. CONCLUSIONS: There are no statistically significant differences in the response to treatment when removing or keeping the prosthesis after regenerative surgery in peri-implant defects.
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the influence of removing or not removing a prosthesis after regenerative surgery on peri-implant defects. METHODS: Two different groups were compared (Group 1: removing the prosthesis; Group 2: maintaining the prosthesis), analyzing radiographic bone filling (n = 32 implants) after regenerative treatment in periapical radiographs. The peri-implant defects were measured before and after regenerative treatment using Bio-Oss® (Geistlich Pharma, Wohhusen, Switzerland) and a reabsorbable collagen membrane (Jason®, Botis, Berlin, Germany), the healing period was two years after peri-implant regenerative surgery. Statistical analysis was performed, and a Chi square test was carried out. To determine the groups that made the difference, corrected standardized Haberman residuals were used, and previously a normality test had been applied; therefore, an ANOVA or Mann-Whitney U test was used for the crossover with the non-normal variables in Group 1 and Group 2. RESULTS: The results obtained suggest that a regenerative procedure with xenograft, resorbable membrane, and detoxifying the implant surface with hydrogen peroxide form a reliable technique to achieve medium-term results, obtaining an average bone gain at a radiographic level of 2.84 mm (±1.78 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was not removed after peri-implant bone regenerative therapy and 2.18 mm (±1.41 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was removed during the healing period. CONCLUSIONS: There are no statistically significant differences in the response to treatment when removing or keeping the prosthesis after regenerative surgery in peri-implant defects.
Entities:
Keywords:
peri-implant defects; peri-implantitis; regenerative surgery
Authors: Jörg Wiltfang; Oliver Zernial; Eleonore Behrens; Andreas Schlegel; Patrick H Warnke; Stephan T Becker Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2010-02-03 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Karolina Karlsson; Jan Derks; Jan Håkansson; Jan L Wennström; Max Petzold; Tord Berglundh Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Frank Schwarz; Martin Sager; Daniel Ferrari; Monika Herten; Marco Wieland; Jürgen Becker Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2007-11-21 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Víctor Astolfi; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; Francisco Javier Gil-Mur; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Beatriz Bullón; Mariano Herrero-Climent; Pedro Bullón Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.390