Yiping Wei, Anqi Tao, Wenjie Hu, Liping Zhao, Tao Xu, Yunsong Liu
{"title":"牙周受损磨牙牙槽的牙槽嵴保存:组织学和1年临床试验的种植结果。","authors":"Yiping Wei, Anqi Tao, Wenjie Hu, Liping Zhao, Tao Xu, Yunsong Liu","doi":"10.1111/clr.14459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the histological outcomes and 1 year implant treatment outcomes following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in extraction sockets of periodontally compromised molars with and without primary wound closure.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Patients requiring molar extraction owing to severe periodontitis were allocated to one of the following groups: (1) ARP with primary wound closure (control group), and (2) ARP with minimally invasive open healing (test group). Six months after ridge preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as 6 months after placement. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed after the final crown insertion and again at 1 year post-procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine patients (39 implants) completed the study. Histomorphometrically, based on 30 participants, the percentage of newly formed bone was 33.7% ± 16.0% and 30.5% ± 14.4% in control and test groups, respectively. Control and test groups showed no significant differences in primary and secondary implant stabilities. No statistically significant differences in any of the clinical measurements were detected between the two groups (p > 0.05). Marginal bone levels remained stable with minimal changes from crown placement to 1 year, measuring 0.32 ± 0.57 mm for the control group and 0.23 ± 0.31 mm for the test group. The survival rates of the implants were 100% in both groups at 1-year post-loading.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ARP with/without primary wound closure resulted in no significant differences in new bone formation and 1 year implant treatment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-ONN-16009433).</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ridge Preservation in Extraction Sockets of Periodontally Compromised Molars With and Without Primary Wound Closure: Histological and 1-Year Implant Outcomes of a Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yiping Wei, Anqi Tao, Wenjie Hu, Liping Zhao, Tao Xu, Yunsong Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the histological outcomes and 1 year implant treatment outcomes following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in extraction sockets of periodontally compromised molars with and without primary wound closure.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Patients requiring molar extraction owing to severe periodontitis were allocated to one of the following groups: (1) ARP with primary wound closure (control group), and (2) ARP with minimally invasive open healing (test group). Six months after ridge preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as 6 months after placement. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed after the final crown insertion and again at 1 year post-procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine patients (39 implants) completed the study. Histomorphometrically, based on 30 participants, the percentage of newly formed bone was 33.7% ± 16.0% and 30.5% ± 14.4% in control and test groups, respectively. Control and test groups showed no significant differences in primary and secondary implant stabilities. No statistically significant differences in any of the clinical measurements were detected between the two groups (p > 0.05). Marginal bone levels remained stable with minimal changes from crown placement to 1 year, measuring 0.32 ± 0.57 mm for the control group and 0.23 ± 0.31 mm for the test group. The survival rates of the implants were 100% in both groups at 1-year post-loading.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ARP with/without primary wound closure resulted in no significant differences in new bone formation and 1 year implant treatment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-ONN-16009433).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"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://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14459\",\"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://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14459","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}
Ridge Preservation in Extraction Sockets of Periodontally Compromised Molars With and Without Primary Wound Closure: Histological and 1-Year Implant Outcomes of a Clinical Trial.
Objective: To compare the histological outcomes and 1 year implant treatment outcomes following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in extraction sockets of periodontally compromised molars with and without primary wound closure.
Material and methods: Patients requiring molar extraction owing to severe periodontitis were allocated to one of the following groups: (1) ARP with primary wound closure (control group), and (2) ARP with minimally invasive open healing (test group). Six months after ridge preservation, trephine cores were harvested for histologic and histomorphometric analysis. Implants were then placed, and implant stability was measured immediately as well as 6 months after placement. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed after the final crown insertion and again at 1 year post-procedure.
Results: Thirty-nine patients (39 implants) completed the study. Histomorphometrically, based on 30 participants, the percentage of newly formed bone was 33.7% ± 16.0% and 30.5% ± 14.4% in control and test groups, respectively. Control and test groups showed no significant differences in primary and secondary implant stabilities. No statistically significant differences in any of the clinical measurements were detected between the two groups (p > 0.05). Marginal bone levels remained stable with minimal changes from crown placement to 1 year, measuring 0.32 ± 0.57 mm for the control group and 0.23 ± 0.31 mm for the test group. The survival rates of the implants were 100% in both groups at 1-year post-loading.
Conclusions: ARP with/without primary wound closure resulted in no significant differences in new bone formation and 1 year implant treatment outcomes.
Trial registration: This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-ONN-16009433).
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.