上颌美观区I型拔牙槽种植时机的评价-一项随机对照试验。

IF 1.5 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-12-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CCIDE.S489867
Muthukumar Santhanakrishnan, Vedavalli Subramanian, Devi Arul, Sri Vidhya Marimuthu
{"title":"上颌美观区I型拔牙槽种植时机的评价-一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Muthukumar Santhanakrishnan, Vedavalli Subramanian, Devi Arul, Sri Vidhya Marimuthu","doi":"10.2147/CCIDE.S489867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The present study aimed to evaluate the appropriate protocol to be followed in the maxillary esthetic zone involving single dental implants by comparing three implant placement protocols: immediate implant placement (IIP) with and without the socket shield technique (SST) and delayed implant placement (DIP) in terms of dynamic alterations in hard and soft tissues and patient-related outcome measures (PROMS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 75 patients were recruited for the study and randomly allocated to the SST, IIP, and DIP groups (25 each). They were subjected to Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) assessment pre-operatively, 6 and 12 months post-operatively to evaluate changes in Crestal Bone Thickness (CBT). Soft tissue changes were evaluated using the pink aesthetic score (PES) and visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess the pain threshold and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a statistically significant difference in the mean reductions in crestal bone thickness (CBT) between and among the groups. The SST group demonstrated a significantly lower reduction in CBT (0.09) than the IIP and DIP groups, which showed a mean reduction in CBT of 0.18 and 0.50 at (p<0.01), respectively, at the end of 12 months. However, when the mean differences in PES between the groups were compared, there was a statistically significant difference for SST 13(2), IIP 10(2), and DIP 9(2) (p<0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Socket shield technique could be technique of choice for IIP when buccal bone thickness is <1mm as demonstrated by less reduction in CBT and better PES at the end of 12 months than the IIP and DIP groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":10445,"journal":{"name":"Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry","volume":"16 ","pages":"481-498"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11631776/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Timing of Implant Placement in Maxillary Esthetic Zone with Type I Extraction Sockets- A Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Muthukumar Santhanakrishnan, Vedavalli Subramanian, Devi Arul, Sri Vidhya Marimuthu\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CCIDE.S489867\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The present study aimed to evaluate the appropriate protocol to be followed in the maxillary esthetic zone involving single dental implants by comparing three implant placement protocols: immediate implant placement (IIP) with and without the socket shield technique (SST) and delayed implant placement (DIP) in terms of dynamic alterations in hard and soft tissues and patient-related outcome measures (PROMS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 75 patients were recruited for the study and randomly allocated to the SST, IIP, and DIP groups (25 each). They were subjected to Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) assessment pre-operatively, 6 and 12 months post-operatively to evaluate changes in Crestal Bone Thickness (CBT). Soft tissue changes were evaluated using the pink aesthetic score (PES) and visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess the pain threshold and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a statistically significant difference in the mean reductions in crestal bone thickness (CBT) between and among the groups. The SST group demonstrated a significantly lower reduction in CBT (0.09) than the IIP and DIP groups, which showed a mean reduction in CBT of 0.18 and 0.50 at (p<0.01), respectively, at the end of 12 months. However, when the mean differences in PES between the groups were compared, there was a statistically significant difference for SST 13(2), IIP 10(2), and DIP 9(2) (p<0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Socket shield technique could be technique of choice for IIP when buccal bone thickness is <1mm as demonstrated by less reduction in CBT and better PES at the end of 12 months than the IIP and DIP groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"481-498\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11631776/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S489867\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S489867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在通过比较三种种植体种植方案:即刻种植体种植(IIP)与不使用窝窝保护技术(SST)和延迟种植体种植(DIP)在软硬组织的动态变化和患者相关结果测量(PROMS)方面,评估上颌美观区适用的合适方案。材料与方法:共招募75例患者,随机分为SST组、IIP组和DIP组(各25例)。术前、术后6个月和12个月接受锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)评估,以评估冠骨厚度(CBT)的变化。采用粉红色美学评分(PES)和视觉模拟评分(VAS)评估软组织变化,评估疼痛阈值和患者满意度。结果:两组间冠骨厚度(CBT)的平均减少量差异有统计学意义。SST组的CBT降低率(0.09)明显低于IIP组和DIP组,IIP组的CBT平均降低率分别为0.18和0.50 (p)。结论:当颊骨厚度达到一定水平时,窝窝屏蔽技术可作为IIP治疗的首选技术
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Timing of Implant Placement in Maxillary Esthetic Zone with Type I Extraction Sockets- A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the appropriate protocol to be followed in the maxillary esthetic zone involving single dental implants by comparing three implant placement protocols: immediate implant placement (IIP) with and without the socket shield technique (SST) and delayed implant placement (DIP) in terms of dynamic alterations in hard and soft tissues and patient-related outcome measures (PROMS).

Materials and methods: A total of 75 patients were recruited for the study and randomly allocated to the SST, IIP, and DIP groups (25 each). They were subjected to Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) assessment pre-operatively, 6 and 12 months post-operatively to evaluate changes in Crestal Bone Thickness (CBT). Soft tissue changes were evaluated using the pink aesthetic score (PES) and visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess the pain threshold and patient satisfaction.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference in the mean reductions in crestal bone thickness (CBT) between and among the groups. The SST group demonstrated a significantly lower reduction in CBT (0.09) than the IIP and DIP groups, which showed a mean reduction in CBT of 0.18 and 0.50 at (p<0.01), respectively, at the end of 12 months. However, when the mean differences in PES between the groups were compared, there was a statistically significant difference for SST 13(2), IIP 10(2), and DIP 9(2) (p<0.01).

Conclusion: Socket shield technique could be technique of choice for IIP when buccal bone thickness is <1mm as demonstrated by less reduction in CBT and better PES at the end of 12 months than the IIP and DIP groups.

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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
43
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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