João Garcez-Filho, Débora de Almeida Bianco, André Barbisan de Souza, Ricardo Puziol de Oliveira, Flávia Matarazzo, Maurício G. Araújo
{"title":"采用分瓣牙冠技术同时植入种植体治疗患者牙槽嵴骨的变化:一项回顾性纵向观察研究。","authors":"João Garcez-Filho, Débora de Almeida Bianco, André Barbisan de Souza, Ricardo Puziol de Oliveira, Flávia Matarazzo, Maurício G. Araújo","doi":"10.1111/clr.14331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To investigate long-term alveolar ridge bone changes in patients treated with the split-crest technique (SCT) with simultaneous implant placement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Alveolar ridge width (ARW) was measured with a caliper immediately before (ARW1) and after SCT (ARW2) with a caliper. Existing CBCT scans taken at least 5 years postoperatively were used to assess the healed ARW (ARWF), buccal bone thickness (BBT), and lingual/palatal bone thickness (L/PBT) at 0, 3, and 5 mm apically from implant platform level (IPL). The distance between IPL and buccal bone crest (IPL-BBC) was also measured. Findings were compared with Wilcoxon and Student's <i>t</i> tests (<i>p</i> < .05).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Records of thirty patients with 85 implants were included. Eleven patients (31 implants) presented CBCT scans taken in two separate occasions, resulting in 116 measurements. Tomographic follow-up ranged from 5 to 18 years (11.5 ± 4.18 years). Mean ARW increased from 3.2 ± 0.6 to 6.6 ± 0.48 mm after SCT, but significantly reduced overtime to 4.46 ± 0.83 mm (ARWF) (<i>p</i> < .0001). Mean BBT was 0.5 ± 0.9, 1.3 ± 0.9, and 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, while mean L/PBT was 0.9 ± 0.7, 1.6 ± 0.9, and 2.1 ± 1.0 mm at 0, 3, and 5 mm from IPL, respectively. IPL-BBC distance varied up to 8.7 mm (1.4 ± 2.0 mm), with 56/116 measurements (51/85 implants) showing IPL-BBC = 0 mm.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Although SCT with simultaneous implant placement can predictably increase ARW postoperatively, ARW tended to significantly reduce over time, due to reductions in BBT and L/PBT, especially coronally. Nonetheless, 60% of the implants still presented some buccal bone at IPL.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 11","pages":"1440-1451"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alveolar ridge bone changes in patients treated with the split-crest technique with simultaneous implant placement: A retrospective longitudinal observational study\",\"authors\":\"João Garcez-Filho, Débora de Almeida Bianco, André Barbisan de Souza, Ricardo Puziol de Oliveira, Flávia Matarazzo, Maurício G. Araújo\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14331\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To investigate long-term alveolar ridge bone changes in patients treated with the split-crest technique (SCT) with simultaneous implant placement.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Alveolar ridge width (ARW) was measured with a caliper immediately before (ARW1) and after SCT (ARW2) with a caliper. Existing CBCT scans taken at least 5 years postoperatively were used to assess the healed ARW (ARWF), buccal bone thickness (BBT), and lingual/palatal bone thickness (L/PBT) at 0, 3, and 5 mm apically from implant platform level (IPL). The distance between IPL and buccal bone crest (IPL-BBC) was also measured. Findings were compared with Wilcoxon and Student's <i>t</i> tests (<i>p</i> < .05).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Records of thirty patients with 85 implants were included. Eleven patients (31 implants) presented CBCT scans taken in two separate occasions, resulting in 116 measurements. Tomographic follow-up ranged from 5 to 18 years (11.5 ± 4.18 years). Mean ARW increased from 3.2 ± 0.6 to 6.6 ± 0.48 mm after SCT, but significantly reduced overtime to 4.46 ± 0.83 mm (ARWF) (<i>p</i> < .0001). Mean BBT was 0.5 ± 0.9, 1.3 ± 0.9, and 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, while mean L/PBT was 0.9 ± 0.7, 1.6 ± 0.9, and 2.1 ± 1.0 mm at 0, 3, and 5 mm from IPL, respectively. IPL-BBC distance varied up to 8.7 mm (1.4 ± 2.0 mm), with 56/116 measurements (51/85 implants) showing IPL-BBC = 0 mm.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although SCT with simultaneous implant placement can predictably increase ARW postoperatively, ARW tended to significantly reduce over time, due to reductions in BBT and L/PBT, especially coronally. Nonetheless, 60% of the implants still presented some buccal bone at IPL.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"35 11\",\"pages\":\"1440-1451\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14331\",\"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.14331","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}
Alveolar ridge bone changes in patients treated with the split-crest technique with simultaneous implant placement: A retrospective longitudinal observational study
Objectives
To investigate long-term alveolar ridge bone changes in patients treated with the split-crest technique (SCT) with simultaneous implant placement.
Materials and Methods
Alveolar ridge width (ARW) was measured with a caliper immediately before (ARW1) and after SCT (ARW2) with a caliper. Existing CBCT scans taken at least 5 years postoperatively were used to assess the healed ARW (ARWF), buccal bone thickness (BBT), and lingual/palatal bone thickness (L/PBT) at 0, 3, and 5 mm apically from implant platform level (IPL). The distance between IPL and buccal bone crest (IPL-BBC) was also measured. Findings were compared with Wilcoxon and Student's t tests (p < .05).
Results
Records of thirty patients with 85 implants were included. Eleven patients (31 implants) presented CBCT scans taken in two separate occasions, resulting in 116 measurements. Tomographic follow-up ranged from 5 to 18 years (11.5 ± 4.18 years). Mean ARW increased from 3.2 ± 0.6 to 6.6 ± 0.48 mm after SCT, but significantly reduced overtime to 4.46 ± 0.83 mm (ARWF) (p < .0001). Mean BBT was 0.5 ± 0.9, 1.3 ± 0.9, and 2.0 ± 1.2 mm, while mean L/PBT was 0.9 ± 0.7, 1.6 ± 0.9, and 2.1 ± 1.0 mm at 0, 3, and 5 mm from IPL, respectively. IPL-BBC distance varied up to 8.7 mm (1.4 ± 2.0 mm), with 56/116 measurements (51/85 implants) showing IPL-BBC = 0 mm.
Conclusion
Although SCT with simultaneous implant placement can predictably increase ARW postoperatively, ARW tended to significantly reduce over time, due to reductions in BBT and L/PBT, especially coronally. Nonetheless, 60% of the implants still presented some buccal bone at IPL.
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.