A N Zuercher, S Mühlemann, E Ruales-Carrera, J Hjerppe, R E Jung, D S Thoma
{"title":"Comparing Small Buccal Dehiscence Defects Treated with or without Guided Bone Regeneration. A Sub-Analysis of a RCT.","authors":"A N Zuercher, S Mühlemann, E Ruales-Carrera, J Hjerppe, R E Jung, D S Thoma","doi":"10.11607/prd.7138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>to assess clinical and radiographical outcomes of single tooth posterior implants with a dehiscence defect treated with or without guided bone regeneration (GBR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomized clinical trial of 59 patients, single-tooth posterior implants were placed. For the subanalysis of 16 patients with a buccal dehiscence defect (≤ 5mm), the implants were randomly assigned to GBR or spontaneous healing (SH). In 8 patients, the implants were surrounded by native bone (Native bone). A transmucosal healing approach was chosen for all sites. Patients were examined at restoration delivery (RD) and at one year (1y). Measurements included: soft tissue thickness (STT), bone tissue thickness (BTT) and buccal contour, based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), optical scans, clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean STT at implant shoulder (IS) showed a gain of 0.15 mm (Q1: - 0.16, Q3: 0.49) for the GBR group and 0.03 mm (Q1: -0.49, Q3: 0.13) for the SH group. The mean BBT 1 mm below IS showed a loss of 0.25 mm (Q1: -0.85, Q3: -0.09) for the GBR group and 0.04 mm (Q1: -0.14, Q3: 0.17) for the SH group. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters indicated healthy peri-implant tissues with no clinically relevant differences between the groups. Patient-reported outcomes regarding pain one day after surgery were similar among the study groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present sub-analysis resulted in a similar buccal contour and similar radiographic outcomes as well as peri-implant health for sites treated with or without GBR.</p>","PeriodicalId":94231,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.7138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: to assess clinical and radiographical outcomes of single tooth posterior implants with a dehiscence defect treated with or without guided bone regeneration (GBR).
Methods: In a randomized clinical trial of 59 patients, single-tooth posterior implants were placed. For the subanalysis of 16 patients with a buccal dehiscence defect (≤ 5mm), the implants were randomly assigned to GBR or spontaneous healing (SH). In 8 patients, the implants were surrounded by native bone (Native bone). A transmucosal healing approach was chosen for all sites. Patients were examined at restoration delivery (RD) and at one year (1y). Measurements included: soft tissue thickness (STT), bone tissue thickness (BTT) and buccal contour, based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), optical scans, clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.
Results: The mean STT at implant shoulder (IS) showed a gain of 0.15 mm (Q1: - 0.16, Q3: 0.49) for the GBR group and 0.03 mm (Q1: -0.49, Q3: 0.13) for the SH group. The mean BBT 1 mm below IS showed a loss of 0.25 mm (Q1: -0.85, Q3: -0.09) for the GBR group and 0.04 mm (Q1: -0.14, Q3: 0.17) for the SH group. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters indicated healthy peri-implant tissues with no clinically relevant differences between the groups. Patient-reported outcomes regarding pain one day after surgery were similar among the study groups.
Conclusions: The present sub-analysis resulted in a similar buccal contour and similar radiographic outcomes as well as peri-implant health for sites treated with or without GBR.