引导骨再生可改善三壁种植体周围炎缺损的填充和重建效果。

Q3 Dentistry
Kelvin I Afrashtehfar, Hayam A Alfallaj, Eduardo Fernandez, Souheil Hussaini
{"title":"引导骨再生可改善三壁种植体周围炎缺损的填充和重建效果。","authors":"Kelvin I Afrashtehfar, Hayam A Alfallaj, Eduardo Fernandez, Souheil Hussaini","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01073-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Design: </strong>This multi-center, randomized clinical trial compared the long-term outcomes of guided bone regeneration (GBR) with open flap debridement (OFD) in treating peri-implantitis-related bony defects with ≥3 osseous walls over 36 months. The study aimed to evaluate the healing potential of GBR using a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) graft and native bilayer collagen membrane (NBCM) compared to OFD without the use of graft materials.</p><p><strong>Case selection: </strong>Sixty-six individuals diagnosed with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to either GBR (34 patients) or OFD (32 patients). The OFD group served as the control, where inflamed tissue was removed and the implant surface decontaminated using 3% hydrogen peroxide, but no bone graft was placed. The GBR group received DBBM and NBCM for defect reconstruction. Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), mucosal recession (MREC), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed over the study duration. Post-surgical care included azithromycin, ibuprofen, and chlorhexidine rinses.</p><p><strong>Study timeline: </strong>The study involved baseline assessments, surgical interventions, and follow-ups at 6, 12, and 36 months. Supportive peri-implant therapy was provided every 3 months during the additional 24-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>Primary outcome was RDF at 36 months. Secondary outcomes included PPD, BOP, SUP, MREC, and PROs. Descriptive statistics and ANCOVA models were used for analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 36 months, GBR resulted in a mean RDF of 2.13  ±  1.26 mm, compared to 1.64  ±  1.54 mm with OFD (p  =  .18). No significant differences were found in PPD, BOP, SUP, REC, or PROs between the groups. Treatment success (defined as no additional bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP, and no SUP) was achieved in 46.2% of GBR cases and 20% of OFD cases (p = 0.053).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GBR provided improved short-term defect fill and higher treatment success compared to OFD, although the differences were not statistically significant. Both procedures maintained clinical parameters over 36 months, with similar patient satisfaction (PROs) observed for GBR and OFD. The adjunct use of DBBM and NBCM may offer clinical benefits for peri-implantitis cases with specific bony defect morphology.</p>","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guided bone regeneration improves defect fill and reconstructive outcomes in 3-wall peri-implantitis defects.\",\"authors\":\"Kelvin I Afrashtehfar, Hayam A Alfallaj, Eduardo Fernandez, Souheil Hussaini\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41432-024-01073-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Design: </strong>This multi-center, randomized clinical trial compared the long-term outcomes of guided bone regeneration (GBR) with open flap debridement (OFD) in treating peri-implantitis-related bony defects with ≥3 osseous walls over 36 months. The study aimed to evaluate the healing potential of GBR using a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) graft and native bilayer collagen membrane (NBCM) compared to OFD without the use of graft materials.</p><p><strong>Case selection: </strong>Sixty-six individuals diagnosed with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to either GBR (34 patients) or OFD (32 patients). The OFD group served as the control, where inflamed tissue was removed and the implant surface decontaminated using 3% hydrogen peroxide, but no bone graft was placed. The GBR group received DBBM and NBCM for defect reconstruction. Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), mucosal recession (MREC), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed over the study duration. Post-surgical care included azithromycin, ibuprofen, and chlorhexidine rinses.</p><p><strong>Study timeline: </strong>The study involved baseline assessments, surgical interventions, and follow-ups at 6, 12, and 36 months. Supportive peri-implant therapy was provided every 3 months during the additional 24-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>Primary outcome was RDF at 36 months. Secondary outcomes included PPD, BOP, SUP, MREC, and PROs. Descriptive statistics and ANCOVA models were used for analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 36 months, GBR resulted in a mean RDF of 2.13  ±  1.26 mm, compared to 1.64  ±  1.54 mm with OFD (p  =  .18). No significant differences were found in PPD, BOP, SUP, REC, or PROs between the groups. Treatment success (defined as no additional bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP, and no SUP) was achieved in 46.2% of GBR cases and 20% of OFD cases (p = 0.053).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GBR provided improved short-term defect fill and higher treatment success compared to OFD, although the differences were not statistically significant. Both procedures maintained clinical parameters over 36 months, with similar patient satisfaction (PROs) observed for GBR and OFD. The adjunct use of DBBM and NBCM may offer clinical benefits for peri-implantitis cases with specific bony defect morphology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01073-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01073-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

设计:这项多中心随机临床试验比较了引导下骨再生(GBR)与开放皮瓣清创(OFD)治疗骨壁≥3 的种植体周围炎相关骨缺损 36 个月的长期疗效。该研究旨在评估使用去蛋白牛骨矿物质(DBBM)移植物和原生双层胶原膜(NBCM)的 GBR 与不使用移植物材料的 OFD 相比的愈合潜力:病例选择:66 名确诊为种植体周围炎的患者被随机分配到 GBR 组(34 名)或 OFD 组(32 名)。OFD 组作为对照组,使用 3% 过氧化氢去除发炎组织并净化种植体表面,但不进行骨移植。GBR 组接受 DBBM 和 NBCM 进行缺损重建。在研究期间,对患者的影像学缺陷填充(RDF)、探诊袋深度(PPD)、探诊出血(BOP)、化脓(SUP)、粘膜衰退(MREC)和患者报告结果(PROs)进行了评估。手术后护理包括阿奇霉素、布洛芬和洗必泰冲洗:研究包括基线评估、手术干预以及 6 个月、12 个月和 36 个月的随访。在额外的 24 个月随访期间,每 3 个月提供一次种植体周围辅助治疗:数据分析:主要结果是 36 个月时的 RDF。次要结果包括 PPD、BOP、SUP、MREC 和 PROs。采用描述性统计和方差分析模型进行分析:36 个月时,GBR 的平均 RDF 为 2.13 ± 1.26 mm,而 OFD 为 1.64 ± 1.54 mm(p = .18)。两组的 PPD、BOP、SUP、REC 或 PROs 均无明显差异。46.2%的 GBR 病例和 20% 的 OFD 病例获得了治疗成功(定义为无额外骨质流失、PPD ≤ 5 mm、无 BOP 和无 SUP)(p = 0.053):与 OFD 相比,GBR 改善了短期缺损填充,提高了治疗成功率,但差异无统计学意义。两种方法都能在 36 个月内维持临床参数,GBR 和 OFD 的患者满意度(PROs)相似。DBBM 和 NBCM 的联合使用可能会为具有特定骨缺损形态的种植体周围炎病例带来临床益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Guided bone regeneration improves defect fill and reconstructive outcomes in 3-wall peri-implantitis defects.

Design: This multi-center, randomized clinical trial compared the long-term outcomes of guided bone regeneration (GBR) with open flap debridement (OFD) in treating peri-implantitis-related bony defects with ≥3 osseous walls over 36 months. The study aimed to evaluate the healing potential of GBR using a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) graft and native bilayer collagen membrane (NBCM) compared to OFD without the use of graft materials.

Case selection: Sixty-six individuals diagnosed with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to either GBR (34 patients) or OFD (32 patients). The OFD group served as the control, where inflamed tissue was removed and the implant surface decontaminated using 3% hydrogen peroxide, but no bone graft was placed. The GBR group received DBBM and NBCM for defect reconstruction. Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), mucosal recession (MREC), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed over the study duration. Post-surgical care included azithromycin, ibuprofen, and chlorhexidine rinses.

Study timeline: The study involved baseline assessments, surgical interventions, and follow-ups at 6, 12, and 36 months. Supportive peri-implant therapy was provided every 3 months during the additional 24-month follow-up.

Data analysis: Primary outcome was RDF at 36 months. Secondary outcomes included PPD, BOP, SUP, MREC, and PROs. Descriptive statistics and ANCOVA models were used for analysis.

Results: At 36 months, GBR resulted in a mean RDF of 2.13  ±  1.26 mm, compared to 1.64  ±  1.54 mm with OFD (p  =  .18). No significant differences were found in PPD, BOP, SUP, REC, or PROs between the groups. Treatment success (defined as no additional bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP, and no SUP) was achieved in 46.2% of GBR cases and 20% of OFD cases (p = 0.053).

Conclusions: GBR provided improved short-term defect fill and higher treatment success compared to OFD, although the differences were not statistically significant. Both procedures maintained clinical parameters over 36 months, with similar patient satisfaction (PROs) observed for GBR and OFD. The adjunct use of DBBM and NBCM may offer clinical benefits for peri-implantitis cases with specific bony defect morphology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信