Correction of Peri‐Implant Buccal Bone Dehiscence Following Sub‐Periosteal Peri‐Implant Augmented Layer Technique With Either Block or Particulate Xenograft: A Retrospective Study

IF 4.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1111/clr.14400

Mattia Severi, Franzini Chiara, Anna Simonelli, Chiara Scapoli, Leonardo Trombelli

{"title":"Correction of Peri‐Implant Buccal Bone Dehiscence Following Sub‐Periosteal Peri‐Implant Augmented Layer Technique With Either Block or Particulate Xenograft: A Retrospective Study","authors":"Mattia Severi, Franzini Chiara, Anna Simonelli, Chiara Scapoli, Leonardo Trombelli","doi":"10.1111/clr.14400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of Sub‐periosteal Peri‐implant Augmented Layer (SPAL) technique performed with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), delivered either as particulate (pDBBM) or block (bDBBM), in correcting a peri implant bone dehiscence (PIBD). Implants showing a thick (≥ 2 mm) peri‐implant buccal bone plate (PBBP) at placement were also examined.Material and MethodsPatients with a PIBD ≥ 1 mm, treated with SPAL with either pDBBM (SPALparticulate) or bDBBM (SPALblock), and patients with an implant showing a PBBP ≥ 2 mm at insertion (CONTROL) were included. Re‐entry was performed either at 6 months (SPAL groups) or 3 months (CONTROL). The rate of patients presenting no PIBD at re‐entry was the primary outcome. Bone dehiscence height (BDH) and width (BDW), thickness of buccal tissues (BTT) and marginal bone level (MBL) were secondary outcomes.ResultsThirty‐nine implants in 39 patients (14 in SPALparticulate,14 in SPALblock and 11 in CONTROL) were analyzed. No PIBD were found in SPALparticulate whereas in SPALblock one PIBD was present. Two patients in CONTROL presented a PIBD. A reduction in both BDH and BDW was observed in both SPALparticulate (2.7 ± 1.6 mm for BDH and 3.9 ± 0.2 mm for BDW) and SPALblock (2.5 ± 1.8 mm for BDH and 3.8 ± 1.1 mm for BDW). SPALblock showed a higher BTT than SPALparticulate at re‐entry (3.6 ± 1.3 mm for SPALblock and 2.6 ± 0.6 mm for SPALparticulate, p = 0.0160). All groups showed similar MBL.ConclusionSPAL performed with either a pDBBM or bDBBM is similarly effective in correcting a PIBD as well as in increasing BTT.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14400","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of Sub‐periosteal Peri‐implant Augmented Layer (SPAL) technique performed with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), delivered either as particulate (pDBBM) or block (bDBBM), in correcting a peri implant bone dehiscence (PIBD). Implants showing a thick (≥ 2 mm) peri‐implant buccal bone plate (PBBP) at placement were also examined.Material and MethodsPatients with a PIBD ≥ 1 mm, treated with SPAL with either pDBBM (SPALparticulate) or bDBBM (SPALblock), and patients with an implant showing a PBBP ≥ 2 mm at insertion (CONTROL) were included. Re‐entry was performed either at 6 months (SPAL groups) or 3 months (CONTROL). The rate of patients presenting no PIBD at re‐entry was the primary outcome. Bone dehiscence height (BDH) and width (BDW), thickness of buccal tissues (BTT) and marginal bone level (MBL) were secondary outcomes.ResultsThirty‐nine implants in 39 patients (14 in SPALparticulate,14 in SPALblock and 11 in CONTROL) were analyzed. No PIBD were found in SPALparticulate whereas in SPALblock one PIBD was present. Two patients in CONTROL presented a PIBD. A reduction in both BDH and BDW was observed in both SPALparticulate (2.7 ± 1.6 mm for BDH and 3.9 ± 0.2 mm for BDW) and SPALblock (2.5 ± 1.8 mm for BDH and 3.8 ± 1.1 mm for BDW). SPALblock showed a higher BTT than SPALparticulate at re‐entry (3.6 ± 1.3 mm for SPALblock and 2.6 ± 0.6 mm for SPALparticulate, p = 0.0160). All groups showed similar MBL.ConclusionSPAL performed with either a pDBBM or bDBBM is similarly effective in correcting a PIBD as well as in increasing BTT.

查看原文本刊更多论文

块状或颗粒状异种移植修复骨膜下种植体周围增强层技术后颊部骨裂的回顾性研究

目的评价骨膜下种植体周围增强层（SPAL）技术与脱蛋白牛骨矿物质（DBBM）结合，以颗粒（pDBBM）或阻滞（bDBBM）的形式治疗种植体周围骨裂（PIBD）的效果。植入时显示种植体周围颊骨板（PBBP）较厚（≥2mm）。材料和方法纳入PIBD≥1mm的患者，用pDBBM （SPALparticulate）或bDBBM （SPALblock）治疗SPAL，以及植入时PBBP≥2mm的患者（CONTROL）。在6个月时（SPAL组）或3个月时（CONTROL组）重新入组。再入院时无PIBD的患者比率是主要终点。骨裂高度（BDH）和宽度（BDW）、颊组织厚度（BTT）和边缘骨水平（MBL）为次要观察指标。结果39例患者共39例种植体（SPALparticulate组14例，SPALblock组14例，CONTROL组11例）。spal颗粒中未发现PIBD，而SPALblock中存在1个PIBD。对照组2例患者出现PIBD。spal颗粒物（BDH为2.7±1.6 mm， BDW为3.9±0.2 mm）和SPALblock （BDH为2.5±1.8 mm， BDW为3.8±1.1 mm）均观察到BDH和BDW的减少。SPALblock在重新进入时的BTT高于SPALparticulate （SPALblock为3.6±1.3 mm， SPALparticulate为2.6±0.6 mm, p = 0.0160）。各组MBL表现相似。结论使用pDBBM或bDBBM进行spal在纠正PIBD和增加BTT方面同样有效。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.