Clinical Oral Implants Research最新文献

{"title":"Long-Term Treatment Outcomes of Peri-Implantitis Reconstructive Therapy: 7-Year Survival and Success of a Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Sila Cagri Isler,Fatma Soysal,Tugce Ceyhanli,Berrin Unsal,Jean-Claude Imber,Andrea Roccuzzo","doi":"10.1111/clr.14466","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14466","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESTo report the 7-year outcomes of a randomized clinical trial evaluating a reconstructive surgical procedure of peri-implantitis with a bone substitute in combination with either concentrated growth factor (CGF) or collagen membrane (CM).MATERIALS AND METHODSThe original population consisted of 57 patients with at least one implant diagnosed with peri-implantitis exhibiting two-, three-, or four-wall intrabony defects ≥ 3 mm which were filled with a xenogenic bone grafting material and covered with either CGF or CM. Clinical and radiographic parameters, treatment success, and disease recurrence frequencies were evaluated over the 7-year follow-up period of supportive periodontal/peri-implant care. Relationships between prognostic indicators/predictors and treatment success and failure were investigated.RESULTSSixteen patients (24 implants) (CGF group) and 18 (25 implants) (CM group) completed the 7-year follow-up. Although short-term improvements in clinical and radiographic outcomes were observed, a tendency toward relapse was detected through time. At implant level, CM group demonstrated significantly more favorable outcomes for deepest PPD and radiographic vertical defect depth (p = 0.040 and p = 0.043) compared to CGF group. At 7 years, treatment success was achieved in 23.1% of CGF and 30.8% of CM patients, while disease recurrence occurred in 34.6% and 30.8%, respectively (p > 0.05). The presence of baseline suppuration was the only significant patient-level predictor for treatment failure (OR = 15.45; 95% CI: 1.42-168.5; p = 0.02).CONCLUSIONBoth protocols led to comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes. Long-term treatment success was limited, with increasing failure rates over time. Baseline suppuration had a significant negative impact on treatment outcomes.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144329017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Impact of Peri-Implant Diseases and Complications on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Following Dental Implant Therapy in Norway: A Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"Erik Klepsland Mauland,Mehrnaz Beheshti Maal,Elisabeth Lind Melbye,Naomi Østergren Aarbu,Karoline Sørensen,Stig Aanerød Ellingsen,Dagmar Fosså Bunæs,Roya Torabi Gaarden,Anders Verket","doi":"10.1111/clr.14467","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14467","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESTo report oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in a sample rehabilitated with dental implants and assess the influence of self-reported implant complications and clinical peri-implant status. A secondary aim was to investigate associations between OHIP-14 scores and patient-related variables.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe Norwegian National Insurance Scheme registry for implant rehabilitation in 2014 was searched, and patients (n = 3083) were mailed a survey including OHIP-14, questions about peri-implant status, and patient-related variables. A subsample was examined clinically (n = 242). Associations of self-reported implant complications and clinical peri-implant status with OHIP-14 scores were evaluated by the Kruskal-Wallis test and logistic regression models.RESULTSThe OHIP-14 mean sum score reported by the 1299 survey respondents was 4.1 (± 6.4). Self-report of complications was associated with higher OHIP-14 scores in a dose-dependent manner. Lower education (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.22), female sex (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.23-2.56), technical complication(s) (OR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07-2.34), biological complication(s) (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.67-3.49) and poor cleansability (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.64-5.37) were associated (p < 0.05) with higher OHIP-14 mean sum scores in the adjusted regression model. For the 242 patients examined clinically, the OHIP-14 mean sum score was 3.8 (± 6.5). Peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.17-5.49) was associated with higher OHIP-14 mean sum scores in the adjusted regression model.CONCLUSIONSOHIP-14 scores were low in this study, indicating good OHRQoL following implant rehabilitation in Norway. Complications lowered OHRQoL in a dose-response manner, confirmed by self-reports of complications and by the presence of peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144320338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comprehensive Update on Implants in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer (2021–2024): Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of the Impact of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy on Implant Survival","authors":"Shengchi Fan, Leonardo Diaz, Gustavo Sáenz‐Ravello, Eduard Valmaseda‐Castellon, Bilal Al‐Nawas, Eik Schiegnitz","doi":"10.1111/clr.14450","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14450","url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate implant outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy or chemotherapy by incorporating the latest research findings.MethodsThe present review was conducted to update the focused question: What is the survival rate of implants placed in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy or chemotherapy compared to non‐irradiated patients? It built upon two previous systematic reviews (2014 and 2022) and provided an updated synthesis of the literature, focusing on clinical studies published between 2021 and 2024. The earlier reviews were included in the quantitative synthesis only to offer a broader longitudinal perspective.ResultsNine studies were identified, with seven included in the quantitative synthesis and meta‐analysis. The implant survival rate was significantly lower in irradiated patients (85.6%) compared to non‐irradiated patients (90.0%) (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.33–1.98, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001, <jats:italic>I</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0.2%). Additionally, implant failure risk was higher in grafted bone (RR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.39–2.96, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.0018, <jats:italic>I</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 21.9%) than in native bone. Among irradiated patients, those receiving radiochemotherapy exhibited an even greater risk of implant failure (RR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.09–3.56, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.0331, <jats:italic>I</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 0%) compared to non‐irradiated patients.ConclusionsCurrent evidence indicates that radiotherapy/chemotherapy significantly increases the risk of implant loss in patients with head and neck cancer, with higher radiation doses possibly being associated with increased peri‐implant bone loss, while implants placed in native bone exhibit a lower risk of failure compared to those placed in grafted bone.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"240 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144319331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Medication‐Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws in Patients on Antiresorptive Medication With Dental Implants. A Scoping Review","authors":"Sanne Werner Moeller Andersen, Nishma Vandvig Hindocha, Iben Poulsen, Henning Schliephake, Simon Storgård Jensen","doi":"10.1111/clr.14453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14453","url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesPatients receiving antiresorptive medication (AR) for osteoporosis or cancer are at risk of medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ), especially after surgical procedures. Dental implant (DI) placement in high‐dose AR (HDAR) patients is widely discouraged, and thorough counseling is recommended for low‐dose AR (LDAR) patients. However, data on the role of AR type, dose, and duration remain limited. This review evaluates MRONJ associated with DIs, focusing on AR type and accumulated dose, and identifies local and systemic risk factors.Materials and MethodsThis review follows the PCC framework for PRISMA‐ScR, comparing patients on AR who developed DI‐related MRONJ to those who did not, based on the available clinical evidence. A systematic search was conducted on April 13, 2024, in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data; a third reviewer resolved disagreements. Data extraction included demographics, primary disease, AR type, dose, treatment duration, DI location, and MRONJ details.ResultsOf 2201 articles, 28 studies were included involving 76 patients with 215 DI (154 in LDAR, 61 in HDAR). The development of MRONJ was reported in 15 studies involving LDAR and four studies on HDAR.ConclusionsEvidence was insufficient to confirm an association between accumulated AR dose and MRONJ associated with DIs. No specific risk factors were identified, emphasizing the need for standardized reporting on AR type, dosage, treatment duration, and intervals to facilitate comprehensive risk assessment. Until evidence‐based guidelines emerge, DI therapy in HDAR or long‐term LDAR patients should be limited to specialized centers.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144319327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Efficacy of Air Powder Water‐Jet Devices in Cleaning Implant Surfaces in a Non‐Surgical Peri‐Implantitis Treatment Simulation—A Laboratory Study","authors":"Kristina Bertl, Alexandra Isik, Tai Truong, Loukia M. Spineli, Patrick Heimel, Wolfgang Manschiebel, Andreas Stavropoulos","doi":"10.1111/clr.14452","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14452","url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of implant surface and instrumentation time on the efficacy of two air powder water‐jet (APWJ) devices in cleaning the implant surface in a simulation of non‐surgical peri‐implantitis treatment.Materials and MethodsTurned and modified surface implants (28 each) were coated with a biofilm imitation and mounted on resin models replicating peri‐implant intra‐osseous defects, including a soft tissue replica. The entire implant periphery was instrumented for 5 or 15s per implant sextant (i.e., in total 30 or 90s per implant), with one of two different APWJ devices using either a glycine or an erythritol powder. Residual biofilm imitation was automatically assessed on standardized photographs and expressed as percentage of the exposed implant surface.ResultsImplant surface (<jats:italic>ε</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup>:0.253, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001) and instrumentation time (<jats:italic>ε</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup>:0.044, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.036) had a moderate and small effect, respectively, on the outcome, that is, instrumenting turned compared to modified surface implants as well as using a longer compared to a shorter instrumentation time resulted in less residual biofilm imitation. Complete biofilm imitation removal was achieved only in four turned implants, treated for 15s per sextant. Every second turned implant presented with a maximum of 5% residual biofilm imitation, while only two modified implants achieved this level of cleanliness.ConclusionIn a non‐surgical peri‐implantitis treatment simulation with APWJ devices, superior biofilm imitation removal was achieved at turned implants, and a longer instrumentation time resulted in less residual biofilm imitation. Modified implants had high chances of incomplete biofilm imitation removal, especially at the apical part of the defect. Complete biofilm imitation removal was in general largely unpredictable.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144319325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effect of Irrigation, Bur Size and Rotational Speed on Thermographic Heat at Implant Site Osteotomy Interface. An In Vitro Study.","authors":"Karl Paeßens,Leonard van Bebber,Holger Zipprich,Paul Weigl","doi":"10.1111/clr.14462","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14462","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of drill diameter, rotational speed, and irrigation on critical heat generation (≥ 47°C) at the dynamic bone-drill interface during dental implant osteotomy in pre-existing pilot bone cavities.MATERIAL AND METHODSBone samples were cut such that immediate and direct thermographic measurements at the dynamic bone-drill interface were possible. Osteotomy cavities of 2.4 mm width were expanded to either 3.2 or 3.8 mm in cortical bovine bone with a thickness of 3.5 mm, using two-bladed twist drills at rotational speeds of 200, 600, or 1000 rpm, with or without saline irrigation. A logistic regression model was developed to predict the likelihood of reaching temperatures ≥ 47°C during osteotomy based on these parameters.RESULTSThe absence of irrigation, major osteotomy diameter expansion, and higher rotational speeds were identified as significant risk factors for increasing the bone-drill interface temperature by more than 10°C (OR: irrigation 177.53; expansion step 9.94; speed by 400 rpm 4.94). No osteotomy performed at a low rotational speed (200 rpm) resulted in a critical temperature rise in either drill diameter group when irrigation was provided. However, temperatures exceeded 47°C across all groups when irrigation was absent.CONCLUSIONSDental implant osteotomy procedures without irrigation result in critical heat stress at the bone-drill interface, even at low drilling speeds. Shortened protocols with large drill diameter differences of up to 1.4 mm can be safely implemented when drilling at 200 rpm with irrigation. Osteotomy protocols can therefore be shortened while maintaining safety.TRIAL REGISTRATIONNo clinical trial was included in the study.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144295970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effect of Horizontal and Vertical Intraoral Scan Bodies on the Trueness of Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions: A Comparative In Vitro Study With Six Implants.","authors":"Luís Azevedo, Andrea Laureti, Tiago Marques, João Pitta, Vincent Fehmer, Alessandro Pozzi, Irena Sailer","doi":"10.1111/clr.14463","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14463","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the interaction between intraoral scan body (ISB) type, operator, and intraoral scanner (IOS) selection on the trueness of complete-arch digital implant impressions. This study also compared horizontal ISBs (H-ISBs) and vertical ISBs (V-ISBs) across four IOS devices.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Digital impressions of a definitive mandibular cast with six multi-unit analogs were made using four H-ISBs from different manufacturers (denoted as H-NB, H-NS, H-M6, and H-SF), with a V-ISB (V-EA) as the reference. Each ISB was scanned using a desktop scanner and by two operators who scanned each ISB system 10 times using four IOS devices i5D, PS, T3, T4, generating 400 digital impressions. Deviations were measured using root-mean-square (RMS) error (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All independent variables (operator, IOS, ISB) significantly affected trueness (p < 0.05). V-EA with i5D had the lowest trueness (78 [27] μm), while H-NS on PS showed the highest (12 [3] μm). H-M6 maintained high trueness across IOS devices. PS was the most stable IOS, while T4 showed the most variability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Complete-arch digital impressions are influenced by ISBs, IOSs, and operators. H-ISBs demonstrated better trueness and consistency across IOSs and operators.</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144265507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Implant Survival in Patient Populations With a Mean Age of 65–75 Years Compared to Older Cohorts: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis","authors":"Samir Abou‐Ayash, Monika Bjelopavlovic, Pedro Molinero‐Mourelle, Martin Schimmel","doi":"10.1111/clr.14456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14456","url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesTo evaluate implant survival and success rates in elderly patients, comparing younger old adults (65–75 years) to older implant patients (&gt; 75 years).MethodsA systematic search was conducted using Medline, Cochrane Library, and PubMed Central for clinical studies on implant therapy in patients aged 65 and older. Outcomes included implant survival and success rates, peri‐implant parameters, bone‐level changes (BLC), and type of restoration and retention. Three‐ and five‐year survival and success rates, as well as implant loss per 100 implant‐years, were estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Poisson regression models and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were used to compare study groups, and meta‐regression with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) assessed BLC.ResultsTwenty‐seven studies with a total of 3892 implants were included. Patients &gt; 75 years had significantly higher five‐year survival rates (96.8%, CI: 95.9–97.5) compared to the 65–75 age group (92.1%, CI: 83.0–96.4; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.031), with lower implant loss rates per 100 implant‐years. No significant difference in success rates was observed (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.229). Although plaque and bleeding on probing (BOP) were more frequent in the older group, there was no significant difference in BLC (mean difference: 0.41 mm; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.189). In patients &gt; 65 with implant overdentures, single attachments showed significantly higher implant loss rates than bars (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.035).ConclusionsDental implants are a reliable treatment for older adults, including those over 75 years. Despite more frequent plaque and BOP in the older group, peri‐implant bone remained stable. Splinting implants in overdenture wearers aged &gt; 65 is associated with 5.6 times higher survival rates.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144237736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of AI‐Powered Tools for CBCT‐Based Mandibular Incisive Canal Segmentation: A Validation Study","authors":"Maria Fernanda Silva da Andrade‐Bortoletto, Thanatchaporn Jindanil, Rocharles Cavalcante Fontenele, Reinhilde Jacobs, Deborah Queiroz Freitas","doi":"10.1111/clr.14455","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14455","url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveIdentification of the mandibular incisive canal (MIC) prior to anterior implant placement is often challenging. The present study aimed to validate an enhanced artificial intelligence (AI)‐driven model dedicated to automated segmentation of MIC on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and to compare its accuracy and time efficiency with simultaneous segmentation of both mandibular canal (MC) and MIC by either human experts or a previously trained AI model.Materials and MethodsAn enhanced AI model was developed based on 100 CBCT scans using expert‐optimized MIC segmentation within the Virtual Patient Creator platform. The performance of the enhanced AI model was tested against human experts and a previously trained AI model using another 40 CBCT scans. Performance metrics included intersection over union (IoU), dice similarity coefficient (DSC), recall, precision, accuracy, and root mean square error (RSME). Time efficiency was also evaluated.ResultsThe enhanced AI model had IoU of 93%, DSC of 93%, recall of 94%, precision of 93%, accuracy of 99%, and RMSE of 0.23 mm. These values were significantly higher than those of the previously trained AI model for all metrics, and for manual segmentation for IoU, DSC, recall, and accuracy (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001). The enhanced AI model demonstrated significant time efficiency, completing segmentation in 17.6 s (125 times faster than manual segmentation) (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.0001).ConclusionThe enhanced AI model proved to allow a unique and accurate automated MIC segmentation with high accuracy and time efficiency. Besides, its performance was superior to human expert segmentation and a previously trained AI model segmentation.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144236839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ridge Preservation in Extraction Sockets of Periodontally Compromised Molars With and Without Primary Wound Closure: Histological and 1-Year Implant Outcomes of a Clinical Trial.","authors":"Yiping Wei, Anqi Tao, Wenjie Hu, Liping Zhao, Tao Xu, Yunsong Liu","doi":"10.1111/clr.14459","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14459","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the histological outcomes and 1 year implant treatment outcomes following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in extraction sockets of periodontally compromised molars with and without primary wound closure.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Patients requiring molar extraction owing to severe periodontitis were allocated to one of the following groups: (1) ARP with primary wound closure (control group), and (2) ARP with minimally invasive open healing (test group). Six months after ridge preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as 6 months after placement. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed after the final crown insertion and again at 1 year post-procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine patients (39 implants) completed the study. Histomorphometrically, based on 30 participants, the percentage of newly formed bone was 33.7% ± 16.0% and 30.5% ± 14.4% in control and test groups, respectively. Control and test groups showed no significant differences in primary and secondary implant stabilities. No statistically significant differences in any of the clinical measurements were detected between the two groups (p > 0.05). Marginal bone levels remained stable with minimal changes from crown placement to 1 year, measuring 0.32 ± 0.57 mm for the control group and 0.23 ± 0.31 mm for the test group. The survival rates of the implants were 100% in both groups at 1-year post-loading.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ARP with/without primary wound closure resulted in no significant differences in new bone formation and 1 year implant treatment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-ONN-16009433).</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}