Jing Wang, Yilin Luo, Dingming Huang, Vicha Huangphattarakul, Yi Man
{"title":"在临近牙尖周病变的前牙区同时引导骨再生种植体:一种预防并发症的综合治疗策略。","authors":"Jing Wang, Yilin Luo, Dingming Huang, Vicha Huangphattarakul, Yi Man","doi":"10.11607/jomi.9839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the safety and performance of a potential novel strategy to resolve the above scenario by simultaneously performing implant-related surgery and endodontic microsurgery (EMS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 25 subjects requiring GBR during implant placement in anterior areas were allocated into two groups. In the experimental group (adjacent teeth with periapical lesions) with 10 subjects, implantation and GBR were performed for edentulous areas with simultaneous EMS for adjacent teeth. In the control group (adjacent teeth without periapical lesions) with 15 subjects, implantation and GBR were performed for edentulous areas. The clinical outcomes, radiographic bone remodeling, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Within a 1-year follow-up, the implant survival rate was 100% in both groups, with no significant difference regarding complications. All teeth achieved complete healing following EMS. Repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) measurements revealed a significant change over time in horizontal bone widths and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, but no intergroup statistically significant differences (<i>P</i> > .05) in horizontal bone widths and visual analog scale scores of pain, swelling, and bleeding were observed. Likewise, the bone volumetric decrease (7.4% ± 4.5% in the experimental group and 7.1% ± 5.2% in the control group) from T1 (suture removal) to T2 (6 months after implantation) revealed no intergroup differences. The horizontal bone width gain at the implant platform was slightly lower in the experimental group (<i>P</i> < .05). Interestingly, the color-coded figures of both groups showed a facial reduction of grafted material in edentulous areas. However, the apical regions following EMS exhibited stable bone remodeling in the experimental group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This novel approach to address the problem involving implant-related surgery close to the periapical lesion of adjacent teeth appeared safe and reliable (no.: ChiCTR2000041153). Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2023;38:533-544. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9839.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"38 3","pages":"533-544b"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implant Placement with Simultaneous Guided Bone Regeneration in the Anterior Region Close to the Periapical Lesion of Adjacent Teeth: A Combined Treatment Strategy to Prevent Complications.\",\"authors\":\"Jing Wang, Yilin Luo, Dingming Huang, Vicha Huangphattarakul, Yi Man\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.9839\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the safety and performance of a potential novel strategy to resolve the above scenario by simultaneously performing implant-related surgery and endodontic microsurgery (EMS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 25 subjects requiring GBR during implant placement in anterior areas were allocated into two groups. In the experimental group (adjacent teeth with periapical lesions) with 10 subjects, implantation and GBR were performed for edentulous areas with simultaneous EMS for adjacent teeth. In the control group (adjacent teeth without periapical lesions) with 15 subjects, implantation and GBR were performed for edentulous areas. The clinical outcomes, radiographic bone remodeling, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Within a 1-year follow-up, the implant survival rate was 100% in both groups, with no significant difference regarding complications. All teeth achieved complete healing following EMS. Repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) measurements revealed a significant change over time in horizontal bone widths and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, but no intergroup statistically significant differences (<i>P</i> > .05) in horizontal bone widths and visual analog scale scores of pain, swelling, and bleeding were observed. Likewise, the bone volumetric decrease (7.4% ± 4.5% in the experimental group and 7.1% ± 5.2% in the control group) from T1 (suture removal) to T2 (6 months after implantation) revealed no intergroup differences. The horizontal bone width gain at the implant platform was slightly lower in the experimental group (<i>P</i> < .05). Interestingly, the color-coded figures of both groups showed a facial reduction of grafted material in edentulous areas. However, the apical regions following EMS exhibited stable bone remodeling in the experimental group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This novel approach to address the problem involving implant-related surgery close to the periapical lesion of adjacent teeth appeared safe and reliable (no.: ChiCTR2000041153). Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2023;38:533-544. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9839.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"533-544b\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9839\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9839","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Implant Placement with Simultaneous Guided Bone Regeneration in the Anterior Region Close to the Periapical Lesion of Adjacent Teeth: A Combined Treatment Strategy to Prevent Complications.
Purpose: To evaluate the safety and performance of a potential novel strategy to resolve the above scenario by simultaneously performing implant-related surgery and endodontic microsurgery (EMS).
Materials and methods: A total of 25 subjects requiring GBR during implant placement in anterior areas were allocated into two groups. In the experimental group (adjacent teeth with periapical lesions) with 10 subjects, implantation and GBR were performed for edentulous areas with simultaneous EMS for adjacent teeth. In the control group (adjacent teeth without periapical lesions) with 15 subjects, implantation and GBR were performed for edentulous areas. The clinical outcomes, radiographic bone remodeling, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.
Results: Within a 1-year follow-up, the implant survival rate was 100% in both groups, with no significant difference regarding complications. All teeth achieved complete healing following EMS. Repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) measurements revealed a significant change over time in horizontal bone widths and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, but no intergroup statistically significant differences (P > .05) in horizontal bone widths and visual analog scale scores of pain, swelling, and bleeding were observed. Likewise, the bone volumetric decrease (7.4% ± 4.5% in the experimental group and 7.1% ± 5.2% in the control group) from T1 (suture removal) to T2 (6 months after implantation) revealed no intergroup differences. The horizontal bone width gain at the implant platform was slightly lower in the experimental group (P < .05). Interestingly, the color-coded figures of both groups showed a facial reduction of grafted material in edentulous areas. However, the apical regions following EMS exhibited stable bone remodeling in the experimental group.
Conclusion: This novel approach to address the problem involving implant-related surgery close to the periapical lesion of adjacent teeth appeared safe and reliable (no.: ChiCTR2000041153). Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2023;38:533-544. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9839.
期刊介绍：
Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS ISSN (Print): 0882-2786
ISSN (Online): 1942-4434
This highly regarded, often-cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy. It presents pioneering research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, seminal studies, emerging technology, position papers, and consensus studies, as well as the many clinical and therapeutic innovations that ensue as a result of these efforts. The editorial board is composed of recognized opinion leaders in their respective areas of expertise and reflects the international reach of the journal. Under their leadership, JOMI maintains its strong scientific integrity while expanding its influence within the field of implant dentistry. JOMI’s popular regular feature "Thematic Abstract Review" presents a review of abstracts of recently published articles on a specific topical area of interest each issue.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
