Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Private Practice, Affoltern a.A., Switzerland.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Jun;31(6):517-525. doi: 10.1111/clr.13588. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
To test whether or not buccal vertical bone dehiscences (≤5 mm) around posterior implants left for spontaneous healing (SH) result in the same clinical and radiologic outcome as dehiscences treated with guided bone regeneration (GBR) at 7.5 years after implant placement (IMPL).
Twenty-two patients receiving 28 posterior implants with a small non-contained buccal bone dehiscence (≤5 mm) were randomly assigned to the SH or the GBR group. Implants were loaded at 6 months. Clinical parameters (probing depths, sulcus bleeding index, plaque index) and approximal marginal radiographic bone levels were assessed regularly up to at least 6.8 years. The vertical extension of the dehiscences was measured clinically at IMPL and abutment connection and radiographically on cone beam computed tomographys at a mean follow-up time of 7.5 years.
Twenty patients with a total of 26 implants were recalled at 7.5 years (9.1% dropout). The implant/crown survival rates were 100% in both groups. Stable peri-implant tissues were observed in both groups showing only minimal signs of inflammation. During the entire study period (IMPL-7.5-year follow-up), the median buccal vertical bone gain measured 1.61 mm for the GBR group and 0.62 for the SH group showing no significant difference between the groups. Also, at 7.5 years, the median approximal marginal bone levels (GBR: 0.53; SH: 0.68) were not significantly different between the two groups (p = .61) while the remaining median buccal vertical dehiscences were larger in the SH group (2.51 mm) compared to the GBR group (1.66 mm; p = .02).
Implants with small non-contained buccal bone dehiscences exhibited high implant survival rates and healthy peri-implant tissues at 7.5 years. In the GBR group, the buccal vertical bone levels were higher compared to the SH group but remained stable over the entire study period for both treatments.
测试在种植体植入后 7.5 年时,对于小的(≤5mm)非全包性颊侧骨开窗,是让其自发愈合(SH),还是用引导骨再生(GBR)治疗,是否会对临床和影像学结果产生相同的影响。
22 名患者共植入 28 颗后牙种植体,颊侧骨开窗较小(≤5mm)且非全包性,随机分为 SH 或 GBR 组。种植体在 6 个月时负载。临床参数(探诊深度、龈沟出血指数、菌斑指数)和近中边缘骨水平在至少 6.8 年内定期评估。在种植体植入和基台连接时,通过临床测量以及在平均 7.5 年的随访时通过锥形束 CT 进行放射学测量,来测量骨开窗的垂直延伸。
20 名患者(9.1%失访)在 7.5 年时被召回。两组的种植体/牙冠存活率均为 100%。两组的种植体周围组织均稳定,仅有轻微的炎症迹象。在整个研究期间(种植体植入至 7.5 年随访),GBR 组的颊侧垂直骨增量中位数为 1.61mm,SH 组为 0.62mm,两组间无显著差异。同样,在 7.5 年时,两组的近中边缘骨水平中位数(GBR:0.53;SH:0.68)无显著差异(p=0.61),而 SH 组的剩余颊侧垂直骨开窗中位数较大(2.51mm),GBR 组为 1.66mm(p=0.02)。
对于小的非全包性颊侧骨开窗的种植体,在 7.5 年时显示出较高的种植体存活率和健康的种植体周围组织。在 GBR 组中,与 SH 组相比,颊侧垂直骨水平更高,但在两种治疗方法中,整个研究期间均保持稳定。