Sophia E. Vollath, Giorgina M. Wiedmer, Clemens Raabe, Manrique Fonseca, Vivianne Chappuis, Maria B. Asparuhova, Ningbo Zhao, Emilio Couso-Queiruga
{"title":"Prevalence of Buccal Ridge Concavities Following Implant Placement With Contour Bone Augmentation: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Sophia E. Vollath, Giorgina M. Wiedmer, Clemens Raabe, Manrique Fonseca, Vivianne Chappuis, Maria B. Asparuhova, Ningbo Zhao, Emilio Couso-Queiruga","doi":"10.1111/clr.70111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the long-term prevalence of buccal ridge concavity (BRC) following implant placement with simultaneous contour bone augmentation (CBA).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Adult patients with at least one single-tooth non-molar implant-supported prosthesis and no diagnosis of peri-implantitis were included in this exploratory cross-sectional study. Clinical, digital, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were collected. Intra-oral scans were analyzed at multiple apico-coronal levels with dedicated software to assess the presence of BRC.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 186 patients (211 implants) were analyzed over a mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 1.4 years. BRC was observed in 100% of sites and patients, with a mean value of −0.83 ± 0.45 mm at the mucosal margin, −0.62 ± 0.39 mm at 3 mm apical, and −0.47 ± 0.32 mm at 5 mm apical. Multivariate analysis at 3 mm apical showed greater BRC in males (+0.165 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.003), premolar sites (+0.110 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.03), and when implants ≥ 12 mm were placed (+0.141 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.008). The greater the keratinized mucosa, the smaller the BRC, and the greater the crestal bone loss, the higher the BRC. PROMs indicated high satisfaction with esthetics, function, treatment expectations, tolerability of the overall procedure, and oral hygiene; OHIP-14 scores were low (2 ± 4).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Implant placement with CBA does not fully restore alveolar ridge volume in non-molar sites, with all cases showing BRC, particularly at the most coronal aspect. However, patient-reported satisfaction remained high.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 6","pages":"693-703"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70111","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.70111","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the long-term prevalence of buccal ridge concavity (BRC) following implant placement with simultaneous contour bone augmentation (CBA).
Methods
Adult patients with at least one single-tooth non-molar implant-supported prosthesis and no diagnosis of peri-implantitis were included in this exploratory cross-sectional study. Clinical, digital, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) were collected. Intra-oral scans were analyzed at multiple apico-coronal levels with dedicated software to assess the presence of BRC.
Results
A total of 186 patients (211 implants) were analyzed over a mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 1.4 years. BRC was observed in 100% of sites and patients, with a mean value of −0.83 ± 0.45 mm at the mucosal margin, −0.62 ± 0.39 mm at 3 mm apical, and −0.47 ± 0.32 mm at 5 mm apical. Multivariate analysis at 3 mm apical showed greater BRC in males (+0.165 mm, p = 0.003), premolar sites (+0.110 mm, p = 0.03), and when implants ≥ 12 mm were placed (+0.141 mm, p = 0.008). The greater the keratinized mucosa, the smaller the BRC, and the greater the crestal bone loss, the higher the BRC. PROMs indicated high satisfaction with esthetics, function, treatment expectations, tolerability of the overall procedure, and oral hygiene; OHIP-14 scores were low (2 ± 4).
Conclusions
Implant placement with CBA does not fully restore alveolar ridge volume in non-molar sites, with all cases showing BRC, particularly at the most coronal aspect. However, patient-reported satisfaction remained high.
目的：评价种植体同步轮廓骨增强（CBA）术后颊嵴凹陷（BRC）的长期患病率。方法：本研究纳入了至少一颗单牙非磨牙种植体支持假体且未诊断为种植体周围炎的成年患者。收集临床、数字和患者报告的结果测量（PROMs）。使用专用软件在多个根尖冠状水平分析口腔内扫描以评估BRC的存在。结果：共分析186例患者（211个种植体），平均随访11.4±1.4年。100%的部位和患者均观察到BRC，粘膜边缘的平均值为-0.83±0.45 mm，根尖3 mm处为-0.62±0.39 mm，根尖5 mm处为-0.47±0.32 mm。多因素分析显示，男性在根尖3 mm处BRC增加（+0.165 mm, p = 0.003），前磨牙处BRC增加（+0.110 mm, p = 0.03），种植体≥12 mm处BRC增加（+0.141 mm, p = 0.008）。角化黏膜越大，BRC越小，牙冠骨质流失越大，BRC越高。前列腺癌患者对口腔美观、功能、治疗预期、整体手术的耐受性和口腔卫生均有较高的满意度；OHIP-14评分较低（2±4）。结论：种植体放置CBA不能完全恢复非磨牙部位的牙槽嵴体积，所有病例均显示BRC，特别是在冠状面。然而，患者报告的满意度仍然很高。
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
