比较使用或不使用引导骨再生治疗的小型颊裂缺损。一项 RCT 的子分析。

A N Zuercher, S Mühlemann, E Ruales-Carrera, J Hjerppe, R E Jung, D S Thoma
{"title":"比较使用或不使用引导骨再生治疗的小型颊裂缺损。一项 RCT 的子分析。","authors":"A N Zuercher, S Mühlemann, E Ruales-Carrera, J Hjerppe, R E Jung, D S Thoma","doi":"10.11607/prd.7138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>to assess clinical and radiographical outcomes of single tooth posterior implants with a dehiscence defect treated with or without guided bone regeneration (GBR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomized clinical trial of 59 patients, single-tooth posterior implants were placed. For the subanalysis of 16 patients with a buccal dehiscence defect (≤ 5mm), the implants were randomly assigned to GBR or spontaneous healing (SH). In 8 patients, the implants were surrounded by native bone (Native bone). A transmucosal healing approach was chosen for all sites. Patients were examined at restoration delivery (RD) and at one year (1y). Measurements included: soft tissue thickness (STT), bone tissue thickness (BTT) and buccal contour, based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), optical scans, clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean STT at implant shoulder (IS) showed a gain of 0.15 mm (Q1: - 0.16, Q3: 0.49) for the GBR group and 0.03 mm (Q1: -0.49, Q3: 0.13) for the SH group. The mean BBT 1 mm below IS showed a loss of 0.25 mm (Q1: -0.85, Q3: -0.09) for the GBR group and 0.04 mm (Q1: -0.14, Q3: 0.17) for the SH group. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters indicated healthy peri-implant tissues with no clinically relevant differences between the groups. Patient-reported outcomes regarding pain one day after surgery were similar among the study groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present sub-analysis resulted in a similar buccal contour and similar radiographic outcomes as well as peri-implant health for sites treated with or without GBR.</p>","PeriodicalId":94231,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Small Buccal Dehiscence Defects Treated with or without Guided Bone Regeneration. A Sub-Analysis of a RCT.\",\"authors\":\"A N Zuercher, S Mühlemann, E Ruales-Carrera, J Hjerppe, R E Jung, D S Thoma\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/prd.7138\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>to assess clinical and radiographical outcomes of single tooth posterior implants with a dehiscence defect treated with or without guided bone regeneration (GBR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomized clinical trial of 59 patients, single-tooth posterior implants were placed. For the subanalysis of 16 patients with a buccal dehiscence defect (≤ 5mm), the implants were randomly assigned to GBR or spontaneous healing (SH). In 8 patients, the implants were surrounded by native bone (Native bone). A transmucosal healing approach was chosen for all sites. Patients were examined at restoration delivery (RD) and at one year (1y). Measurements included: soft tissue thickness (STT), bone tissue thickness (BTT) and buccal contour, based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), optical scans, clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean STT at implant shoulder (IS) showed a gain of 0.15 mm (Q1: - 0.16, Q3: 0.49) for the GBR group and 0.03 mm (Q1: -0.49, Q3: 0.13) for the SH group. The mean BBT 1 mm below IS showed a loss of 0.25 mm (Q1: -0.85, Q3: -0.09) for the GBR group and 0.04 mm (Q1: -0.14, Q3: 0.17) for the SH group. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters indicated healthy peri-implant tissues with no clinically relevant differences between the groups. Patient-reported outcomes regarding pain one day after surgery were similar among the study groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present sub-analysis resulted in a similar buccal contour and similar radiographic outcomes as well as peri-implant health for sites treated with or without GBR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.7138\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.7138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估有开裂缺损的单牙后牙种植体采用或不采用引导骨再生(GBR)治疗的临床和放射学效果:方法:在一项针对 59 名患者的随机临床试验中,植入了单牙后种植体。在对 16 名颊面裂缺损(≤ 5 毫米)患者的子分析中,种植体被随机分配为 GBR 或自愈合(SH)。在 8 位患者中,种植体周围是原生骨(Native bone)。所有部位都选择了经粘膜愈合方法。患者在修复体交付时(RD)和一年后(1y)接受检查。测量项目包括:软组织厚度(STT)、骨组织厚度(BTT)和颊部轮廓(基于锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)、光学扫描和临床参数)。所有数据均进行了描述性分析:GBR组种植体肩部(IS)的平均STT增加了0.15毫米(Q1:- 0.16,Q3:0.49),SH组增加了0.03毫米(Q1:-0.49,Q3:0.13)。IS下1毫米的平均BBT显示,GBR组损失了0.25毫米(Q1:-0.85,Q3:-0.09),SH组损失了0.04毫米(Q1:-0.14,Q3:0.17)。所有种植体周围软组织参数均显示种植体周围组织健康,组间无临床相关差异。各研究组患者报告的术后一天疼痛结果相似:本子分析结果显示,使用或不使用 GBR 治疗的部位具有相似的颊部轮廓、相似的放射学结果以及种植体周围健康状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Small Buccal Dehiscence Defects Treated with or without Guided Bone Regeneration. A Sub-Analysis of a RCT.

Aim: to assess clinical and radiographical outcomes of single tooth posterior implants with a dehiscence defect treated with or without guided bone regeneration (GBR).

Methods: In a randomized clinical trial of 59 patients, single-tooth posterior implants were placed. For the subanalysis of 16 patients with a buccal dehiscence defect (≤ 5mm), the implants were randomly assigned to GBR or spontaneous healing (SH). In 8 patients, the implants were surrounded by native bone (Native bone). A transmucosal healing approach was chosen for all sites. Patients were examined at restoration delivery (RD) and at one year (1y). Measurements included: soft tissue thickness (STT), bone tissue thickness (BTT) and buccal contour, based on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), optical scans, clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.

Results: The mean STT at implant shoulder (IS) showed a gain of 0.15 mm (Q1: - 0.16, Q3: 0.49) for the GBR group and 0.03 mm (Q1: -0.49, Q3: 0.13) for the SH group. The mean BBT 1 mm below IS showed a loss of 0.25 mm (Q1: -0.85, Q3: -0.09) for the GBR group and 0.04 mm (Q1: -0.14, Q3: 0.17) for the SH group. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters indicated healthy peri-implant tissues with no clinically relevant differences between the groups. Patient-reported outcomes regarding pain one day after surgery were similar among the study groups.

Conclusions: The present sub-analysis resulted in a similar buccal contour and similar radiographic outcomes as well as peri-implant health for sites treated with or without GBR.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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