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 journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
APA
Author
Harvard
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 journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
Vancouver
BibTeX
}
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