Daniel Thoma, Alfonso Gil, Thomas de Bruyckere, Ronald E. Jung, Shunsuke Fukuba, Axelle Ickroth, Franz J. Strauss, Jan Cosyn
{"title":"早期植入种植体与保留牙脊和延迟植入种植体：对一项双中心 RCT 的轮廓测量、临床医生和患者报告结果的分析。","authors":"Daniel Thoma, Alfonso Gil, Thomas de Bruyckere, Ronald E. Jung, Shunsuke Fukuba, Axelle Ickroth, Franz J. Strauss, Jan Cosyn","doi":"10.1111/clr.14325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To compare early implant placement (EP) to alveolar ridge preservation and delayed implant placement (ARP/DP) in terms of contour changes, along with clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) until the delivery of the implant-supported restoration.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients with a failing single tooth in the maxilla or mandible were recruited in two centres. After tooth extraction, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EP or ARP/DP. At abutment connection and crown delivery, the buccal contour changes at 3 mm below the mucosal margin (primary outcome) along with clinician- (ease of treatment) and patient-reported outcomes were assessed using numeric rating scales and OHIP-14.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 46 patients were analysed. The mean buccal contour at abutment connection decreased by −1.2 ± 0.6 mm in group EP and −1.6 ± 0.8 mm in group ARP/DP (estimated mean difference; 0.45 [95%CI, −0.02; 0.94]; <i>p</i> = .061) with no significant differences between the groups. ARP/DP was consistently easier than EP across all stages of the surgery (estimated mean difference; 2.0 [95%CI, 1.3; 2.7] <i>p</i> < .001): during flap elevation (EP: 4.8 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6), implant placement (EP: 5.7 vs. ARP/DP: 2.2) and wound closure (EP: 3.4 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6). Both interventions improved quality of life but patients who underwent ARP/DP were significantly more satisfied at the time of crown delivery (ARP/DP: 9.6 vs. EP: 9.1, <i>p</i> = .02).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>EP and ARP/DP show no significant differences in buccal contour changes, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes. However, ARP/DP is an easier procedure at all stages of the surgery compared to EP and could therefore be the preferred therapy for less experienced clinicians.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 11","pages":"1382-1393"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14325","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early implant placement versus ridge preservation and delayed implant placement: Analysis of profilometric, clinician- and patient-reported outcomes from a two-centre RCT\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Thoma, Alfonso Gil, Thomas de Bruyckere, Ronald E. Jung, Shunsuke Fukuba, Axelle Ickroth, Franz J. Strauss, Jan Cosyn\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To compare early implant placement (EP) to alveolar ridge preservation and delayed implant placement (ARP/DP) in terms of contour changes, along with clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) until the delivery of the implant-supported restoration.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients with a failing single tooth in the maxilla or mandible were recruited in two centres. After tooth extraction, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EP or ARP/DP. At abutment connection and crown delivery, the buccal contour changes at 3 mm below the mucosal margin (primary outcome) along with clinician- (ease of treatment) and patient-reported outcomes were assessed using numeric rating scales and OHIP-14.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 46 patients were analysed. The mean buccal contour at abutment connection decreased by −1.2 ± 0.6 mm in group EP and −1.6 ± 0.8 mm in group ARP/DP (estimated mean difference; 0.45 [95%CI, −0.02; 0.94]; <i>p</i> = .061) with no significant differences between the groups. ARP/DP was consistently easier than EP across all stages of the surgery (estimated mean difference; 2.0 [95%CI, 1.3; 2.7] <i>p</i> < .001): during flap elevation (EP: 4.8 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6), implant placement (EP: 5.7 vs. ARP/DP: 2.2) and wound closure (EP: 3.4 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6). Both interventions improved quality of life but patients who underwent ARP/DP were significantly more satisfied at the time of crown delivery (ARP/DP: 9.6 vs. EP: 9.1, <i>p</i> = .02).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>EP and ARP/DP show no significant differences in buccal contour changes, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes. However, ARP/DP is an easier procedure at all stages of the surgery compared to EP and could therefore be the preferred therapy for less experienced clinicians.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"35 11\",\"pages\":\"1382-1393\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14325\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14325\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14325","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
摘要
目的比较早期种植体植入（EP）与牙槽嵴保留和延迟种植体植入（ARP/DP）在轮廓变化、临床医生和患者报告的结果测量（PROMs）方面的差异，直至提供种植体支持的修复体：在两个中心招募上颌或下颌单颗牙齿失败的患者。拔牙后，患者被随机分配（1:1）EP 或 ARP/DP。在基台连接和牙冠交付时，使用数字评分表和 OHIP-14 评估粘膜边缘下 3 毫米处的颊面轮廓变化（主要结果）以及临床医生（治疗难易程度）和患者报告的结果：结果：共对 46 名患者进行了分析。EP组患者基台连接处的平均颊面轮廓下降了-1.2 ± 0.6 mm，ARP/DP组患者基台连接处的平均颊面轮廓下降了-1.6 ± 0.8 mm（估计平均差异；0.45 [95%CI, -0.02; 0.94]; p = .061），组间无显著差异。在手术的所有阶段，ARP/DP 始终比 EP 更容易（估计平均差异；2.0 [95%CI, 1.3; 2.7] p 结论：EP 和 ARP/DP 在颊部轮廓变化、美学和患者报告结果方面没有明显差异。不过，与 EP 相比，ARP/DP 在手术的各个阶段都更容易操作，因此对于经验不足的临床医生来说，ARP/DP 可能是首选疗法。
Early implant placement versus ridge preservation and delayed implant placement: Analysis of profilometric, clinician- and patient-reported outcomes from a two-centre RCT
Objectives
To compare early implant placement (EP) to alveolar ridge preservation and delayed implant placement (ARP/DP) in terms of contour changes, along with clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) until the delivery of the implant-supported restoration.
Materials and Methods
Patients with a failing single tooth in the maxilla or mandible were recruited in two centres. After tooth extraction, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EP or ARP/DP. At abutment connection and crown delivery, the buccal contour changes at 3 mm below the mucosal margin (primary outcome) along with clinician- (ease of treatment) and patient-reported outcomes were assessed using numeric rating scales and OHIP-14.
Results
A total of 46 patients were analysed. The mean buccal contour at abutment connection decreased by −1.2 ± 0.6 mm in group EP and −1.6 ± 0.8 mm in group ARP/DP (estimated mean difference; 0.45 [95%CI, −0.02; 0.94]; p = .061) with no significant differences between the groups. ARP/DP was consistently easier than EP across all stages of the surgery (estimated mean difference; 2.0 [95%CI, 1.3; 2.7] p < .001): during flap elevation (EP: 4.8 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6), implant placement (EP: 5.7 vs. ARP/DP: 2.2) and wound closure (EP: 3.4 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6). Both interventions improved quality of life but patients who underwent ARP/DP were significantly more satisfied at the time of crown delivery (ARP/DP: 9.6 vs. EP: 9.1, p = .02).
Conclusions
EP and ARP/DP show no significant differences in buccal contour changes, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes. However, ARP/DP is an easier procedure at all stages of the surgery compared to EP and could therefore be the preferred therapy for less experienced clinicians.
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
