UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Guided bone regeneration and abutment connection augment the buccal soft tissue contour: 3-year results of a prospective comparative clinical study


Benic, Goran I; Ge, Yanjun; Gallucci, German O; Jung, Ronald E; Schneider, David; Hämmerle, Christoph H F (2016). Guided bone regeneration and abutment connection augment the buccal soft tissue contour: 3-year results of a prospective comparative clinical study. Clinical Oral Implants Research:Epub ahead of print.

Abstract

AIM: To test whether implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) differs from implant placement without GBR regarding the change in marginal mucosal contour.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 28 patients, single implants were placed >4 months after tooth extraction. Eighteen implants were completely surrounded by native bone, and no bone augmentation was performed. At 10 implant sites, bone defects and thin bone plates were grafted with deproteinized bovine-derived bone mineral and covered with collagen membrane. Impressions were taken prior to implant placement (baseline), at 3 months before abutment connection, at 6 months immediately after crown insertion, at 1 year, and at 3 years. Models were optically scanned and 3D images were superimposed for the evaluation of mucosal contour changes at the mid-buccal aspect. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was applied to detect differences.
RESULTS: From baseline to 6 months, horizontal contour change at the level 1 and 2 mm apical to the mucosal margin measured 0.65 ± 0.74 mm and 0.55 ± 0.56 mm at sites without GBR, and 1.92 ± 0.87 mm and 1.76 ± 0.70 mm at sites with GBR (P < 0.05). In the period from baseline to 1 year, the corresponding values amounted to 0.81 ± 0.67 mm and 0.60 ± 0.55 mm in the group without GBR, and to 1.81 ± 0.86 mm and 1.37 ± 0.62 mm in the group with GBR (P < 0.05). From baseline to 6 months, mucosal margin moved 0.16 ± 0.49 mm in the coronal direction in the group without GBR and 0.82 ± 0.65 mm in the group with GBR (P < 0.05). In the period from baseline to 1 year, vertical change of mucosal margin amounted to 0.64 ± 0.54 mm in the group without GBR and to 1.17 ± 0.53 mm in the GBR group (P < 0.05). From 1 to 3 years, the mucosal contours remained stable.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement with simultaneous GBR resulted in more gain of buccal soft tissue contour in comparison with implant placement without GBR. Abutment connection increased the contour of the marginal mucosa at the augmented and the nonaugmented sites. GBR procedure contributed more to the contour gain than did the abutment connection. The augmented and the nonaugmented ridges exhibited stable peri-implant mucosal contour over a 3-year period.

Abstract

AIM: To test whether implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) differs from implant placement without GBR regarding the change in marginal mucosal contour.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 28 patients, single implants were placed >4 months after tooth extraction. Eighteen implants were completely surrounded by native bone, and no bone augmentation was performed. At 10 implant sites, bone defects and thin bone plates were grafted with deproteinized bovine-derived bone mineral and covered with collagen membrane. Impressions were taken prior to implant placement (baseline), at 3 months before abutment connection, at 6 months immediately after crown insertion, at 1 year, and at 3 years. Models were optically scanned and 3D images were superimposed for the evaluation of mucosal contour changes at the mid-buccal aspect. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was applied to detect differences.
RESULTS: From baseline to 6 months, horizontal contour change at the level 1 and 2 mm apical to the mucosal margin measured 0.65 ± 0.74 mm and 0.55 ± 0.56 mm at sites without GBR, and 1.92 ± 0.87 mm and 1.76 ± 0.70 mm at sites with GBR (P < 0.05). In the period from baseline to 1 year, the corresponding values amounted to 0.81 ± 0.67 mm and 0.60 ± 0.55 mm in the group without GBR, and to 1.81 ± 0.86 mm and 1.37 ± 0.62 mm in the group with GBR (P < 0.05). From baseline to 6 months, mucosal margin moved 0.16 ± 0.49 mm in the coronal direction in the group without GBR and 0.82 ± 0.65 mm in the group with GBR (P < 0.05). In the period from baseline to 1 year, vertical change of mucosal margin amounted to 0.64 ± 0.54 mm in the group without GBR and to 1.17 ± 0.53 mm in the GBR group (P < 0.05). From 1 to 3 years, the mucosal contours remained stable.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement with simultaneous GBR resulted in more gain of buccal soft tissue contour in comparison with implant placement without GBR. Abutment connection increased the contour of the marginal mucosa at the augmented and the nonaugmented sites. GBR procedure contributed more to the contour gain than did the abutment connection. The augmented and the nonaugmented ridges exhibited stable peri-implant mucosal contour over a 3-year period.

Altmetrics

Downloads

3 downloads since deposited on 23 Mar 2016
3 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:GBR; abutment connection; bone; bone substitute; clinical; contour; dental implant; guided bone regeneration; human; mucosa; optical; regeneration; scan; soft tissue; volume
Language:English
Date:8 February 2016
Deposited On:23 Mar 2016 16:03
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 20:11
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:0905-7161
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12786
PubMed ID:26856399

Download

[img]
Content: Accepted Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only until 8 February 2017
Size: 1MB
View at publisher
Embargo till: 2017-02-08
[img]
Content: Published Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 529kB

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations