Publication

Outcome of Treatment with Single Imp ants in Preserved Versus Nonpreserved Alveolar Ridges: A 1-year Cohort Study

Zuiderveld, E. G., Meijer, H. J., Vissink, A. & Raghoebar, G. M., 12-Nov-2019, In : International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 34, 6, p. 1457-1465 9 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Zuiderveld, E. G., Meijer, H. J., Vissink, A., & Raghoebar, G. M. (2019). Outcome of Treatment with Single Imp ants in Preserved Versus Nonpreserved Alveolar Ridges: A 1-year Cohort Study. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 34(6), 1457-1465. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7367

Author

Zuiderveld, Elise G ; Meijer, Henny Ja ; Vissink, Arjan ; Raghoebar, Gerry M. / Outcome of Treatment with Single Imp ants in Preserved Versus Nonpreserved Alveolar Ridges : A 1-year Cohort Study. In: International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2019 ; Vol. 34, No. 6. pp. 1457-1465.

Harvard

Zuiderveld, EG, Meijer, HJ, Vissink, A & Raghoebar, GM 2019, 'Outcome of Treatment with Single Imp ants in Preserved Versus Nonpreserved Alveolar Ridges: A 1-year Cohort Study', International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1457-1465. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7367

Standard

Outcome of Treatment with Single Imp ants in Preserved Versus Nonpreserved Alveolar Ridges : A 1-year Cohort Study. / Zuiderveld, Elise G; Meijer, Henny Ja; Vissink, Arjan; Raghoebar, Gerry M.

In: International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Vol. 34, No. 6, 12.11.2019, p. 1457-1465.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Zuiderveld EG, Meijer HJ, Vissink A, Raghoebar GM. Outcome of Treatment with Single Imp ants in Preserved Versus Nonpreserved Alveolar Ridges: A 1-year Cohort Study. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2019 Nov 12;34(6):1457-1465. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7367


BibTeX

@article{0b19e247418546c498f6b3eb61a8f69d,
title = "Outcome of Treatment with Single Imp ants in Preserved Versus Nonpreserved Alveolar Ridges: A 1-year Cohort Study",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of placement of single implants in the esthetic zone of the maxilla in preserved alveolar ridges, compared with nonpreserved alveolar ridges, on the change in midlabial mucosal level, esthetics, marginal bone level, and patient satisfaction.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a failing single tooth, and demonstrating a large vertical defect (≥ 5 mm) of the labial wall of the extraction socket, were pre-augmented with a mixture of autologous bone and anorganic bovine bone. A mucosal graft sealed the pocket. After 4 months, a single implant was placed in the preserved alveolar ridge (test group; n = 20). The results were compared with those from patients who had one missing tooth and were treated with placement of an implant in a nonpreserved alveolar ridge, whereby the connective tissue graft was combined with the placement of the implant (control group; n = 20). Changes in midlabial mucosal level were scored on intraoral images. Intraoral radiographs were made to assess marginal bone level changes after definitive crown placement (1 month [T1], 12 [T12] months). The pink esthetic score/white esthetic score at T12 was used to determine esthetics. Patient satisfaction was assessed before treatment (Tpre), and at T1 and T12.RESULTS: The mean midlabial mucosal level changes were 0.07 ± 0.29 mm and -0.15 ± 0.23 mm at T1 and T12 for the control and test groups, respectively (P = .01). No significant changes were observed for the other outcome variables.CONCLUSION: Single implant treatment in a preserved alveolar ridge and nonpreserved alveolar ridge is accompanied by clinically nonrelevant changes in the midlabial mucosal level. Changes in marginal bone level, esthetics, and patient satisfaction were comparable between the groups.",
keywords = "alveolar ridge augmentation, connective tissue grafting, esthetics, single-tooth implants, RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL, GUIDED BONE REGENERATION, SOFT-TISSUE AUGMENTATION, PERI-IMPLANT TISSUES, BUCCAL BONE, GINGIVAL THICKNESS, AESTHETIC ZONE, FOLLOW-UP, EXTRACTION SOCKETS, TOOTH EXTRACTION",
author = "Zuiderveld, {Elise G} and Meijer, {Henny Ja} and Arjan Vissink and Raghoebar, {Gerry M}",
year = "2019",
month = nov,
day = "12",
doi = "10.11607/jomi.7367",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "1457--1465",
journal = "International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc.",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcome of Treatment with Single Imp ants in Preserved Versus Nonpreserved Alveolar Ridges

T2 - A 1-year Cohort Study

AU - Zuiderveld, Elise G

AU - Meijer, Henny Ja

AU - Vissink, Arjan

AU - Raghoebar, Gerry M

PY - 2019/11/12

Y1 - 2019/11/12

N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of placement of single implants in the esthetic zone of the maxilla in preserved alveolar ridges, compared with nonpreserved alveolar ridges, on the change in midlabial mucosal level, esthetics, marginal bone level, and patient satisfaction.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a failing single tooth, and demonstrating a large vertical defect (≥ 5 mm) of the labial wall of the extraction socket, were pre-augmented with a mixture of autologous bone and anorganic bovine bone. A mucosal graft sealed the pocket. After 4 months, a single implant was placed in the preserved alveolar ridge (test group; n = 20). The results were compared with those from patients who had one missing tooth and were treated with placement of an implant in a nonpreserved alveolar ridge, whereby the connective tissue graft was combined with the placement of the implant (control group; n = 20). Changes in midlabial mucosal level were scored on intraoral images. Intraoral radiographs were made to assess marginal bone level changes after definitive crown placement (1 month [T1], 12 [T12] months). The pink esthetic score/white esthetic score at T12 was used to determine esthetics. Patient satisfaction was assessed before treatment (Tpre), and at T1 and T12.RESULTS: The mean midlabial mucosal level changes were 0.07 ± 0.29 mm and -0.15 ± 0.23 mm at T1 and T12 for the control and test groups, respectively (P = .01). No significant changes were observed for the other outcome variables.CONCLUSION: Single implant treatment in a preserved alveolar ridge and nonpreserved alveolar ridge is accompanied by clinically nonrelevant changes in the midlabial mucosal level. Changes in marginal bone level, esthetics, and patient satisfaction were comparable between the groups.

AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of placement of single implants in the esthetic zone of the maxilla in preserved alveolar ridges, compared with nonpreserved alveolar ridges, on the change in midlabial mucosal level, esthetics, marginal bone level, and patient satisfaction.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a failing single tooth, and demonstrating a large vertical defect (≥ 5 mm) of the labial wall of the extraction socket, were pre-augmented with a mixture of autologous bone and anorganic bovine bone. A mucosal graft sealed the pocket. After 4 months, a single implant was placed in the preserved alveolar ridge (test group; n = 20). The results were compared with those from patients who had one missing tooth and were treated with placement of an implant in a nonpreserved alveolar ridge, whereby the connective tissue graft was combined with the placement of the implant (control group; n = 20). Changes in midlabial mucosal level were scored on intraoral images. Intraoral radiographs were made to assess marginal bone level changes after definitive crown placement (1 month [T1], 12 [T12] months). The pink esthetic score/white esthetic score at T12 was used to determine esthetics. Patient satisfaction was assessed before treatment (Tpre), and at T1 and T12.RESULTS: The mean midlabial mucosal level changes were 0.07 ± 0.29 mm and -0.15 ± 0.23 mm at T1 and T12 for the control and test groups, respectively (P = .01). No significant changes were observed for the other outcome variables.CONCLUSION: Single implant treatment in a preserved alveolar ridge and nonpreserved alveolar ridge is accompanied by clinically nonrelevant changes in the midlabial mucosal level. Changes in marginal bone level, esthetics, and patient satisfaction were comparable between the groups.

KW - alveolar ridge augmentation

KW - connective tissue grafting

KW - esthetics

KW - single-tooth implants

KW - RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL

KW - GUIDED BONE REGENERATION

KW - SOFT-TISSUE AUGMENTATION

KW - PERI-IMPLANT TISSUES

KW - BUCCAL BONE

KW - GINGIVAL THICKNESS

KW - AESTHETIC ZONE

KW - FOLLOW-UP

KW - EXTRACTION SOCKETS

KW - TOOTH EXTRACTION

U2 - 10.11607/jomi.7367

DO - 10.11607/jomi.7367

M3 - Article

C2 - 31711086

VL - 34

SP - 1457

EP - 1465

JO - International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 102475949