Cargando…

Dental implants with versus without peri-implant bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration

BACKGROUND: The guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique is highly successful for the treatment of peri-implant bone defects. The aim was to determine whether or not implants associated with GBR due to peri-implant defects show the same survival and success rates as implants placed in native bone wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aloy-Prósper, Amparo, Peñarrocha-Oltra, David, Peñarrocha-Diago, Maria, Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26330931
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.52292
_version_ 1782388027719417856
author Aloy-Prósper, Amparo
Peñarrocha-Oltra, David
Peñarrocha-Diago, Maria
Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
author_facet Aloy-Prósper, Amparo
Peñarrocha-Oltra, David
Peñarrocha-Diago, Maria
Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
author_sort Aloy-Prósper, Amparo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique is highly successful for the treatment of peri-implant bone defects. The aim was to determine whether or not implants associated with GBR due to peri-implant defects show the same survival and success rates as implants placed in native bone without defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with a minimum of two submerged dental implants: one suffering a dehiscence or fenestration defect during placement and undergoing simultaneous guided bone regeneration (test group), versus the other entirely surrounded by bone (control group) were treated and monitored annually for three years. Complications with the healing procedure, implant survival, implant success and peri-implant marginal bone loss were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed with non-parametric tests setting an alpha value of 0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients and 326 implants were included (142 test, 184 control). One hundred and twenty-five dehiscences (average height 1.92±1.11) and 18 fenestrations (average height 3.34±2.16) were treated. At 3 years post-loading, implant survival rates were 95.7% (test) and 97.3% (control) and implant success rates were 93.6% and 96.2%, respectively. Mean marginal bone loss was 0.54 (SD 0.26 mm) for the test group and 0.43 (SD 0.22 mm) for the control group. No statistically significant differences between both groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, implants with peri-implant defects treated with guided bone regeneration exhibited similar survival and success rates and peri-implant marginal bone loss to implants without those defects. Large-scale randomized controlled studies with longer follow-ups involving the assessment of esthetic parameters and hard and soft peri-implant tissue stability are needed. Key words:Guided bone regeneration, peri-implant defects, dental implants, marginal bone level, success rate, survival rate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4554234
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45542342015-09-01 Dental implants with versus without peri-implant bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration Aloy-Prósper, Amparo Peñarrocha-Oltra, David Peñarrocha-Diago, Maria Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: The guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique is highly successful for the treatment of peri-implant bone defects. The aim was to determine whether or not implants associated with GBR due to peri-implant defects show the same survival and success rates as implants placed in native bone without defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with a minimum of two submerged dental implants: one suffering a dehiscence or fenestration defect during placement and undergoing simultaneous guided bone regeneration (test group), versus the other entirely surrounded by bone (control group) were treated and monitored annually for three years. Complications with the healing procedure, implant survival, implant success and peri-implant marginal bone loss were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed with non-parametric tests setting an alpha value of 0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients and 326 implants were included (142 test, 184 control). One hundred and twenty-five dehiscences (average height 1.92±1.11) and 18 fenestrations (average height 3.34±2.16) were treated. At 3 years post-loading, implant survival rates were 95.7% (test) and 97.3% (control) and implant success rates were 93.6% and 96.2%, respectively. Mean marginal bone loss was 0.54 (SD 0.26 mm) for the test group and 0.43 (SD 0.22 mm) for the control group. No statistically significant differences between both groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, implants with peri-implant defects treated with guided bone regeneration exhibited similar survival and success rates and peri-implant marginal bone loss to implants without those defects. Large-scale randomized controlled studies with longer follow-ups involving the assessment of esthetic parameters and hard and soft peri-implant tissue stability are needed. Key words:Guided bone regeneration, peri-implant defects, dental implants, marginal bone level, success rate, survival rate. Medicina Oral S.L. 2015-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4554234/ /pubmed/26330931 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.52292 Text en Copyright: © 2015 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Aloy-Prósper, Amparo
Peñarrocha-Oltra, David
Peñarrocha-Diago, Maria
Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
Dental implants with versus without peri-implant bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration
title Dental implants with versus without peri-implant bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration
title_full Dental implants with versus without peri-implant bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration
title_fullStr Dental implants with versus without peri-implant bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration
title_full_unstemmed Dental implants with versus without peri-implant bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration
title_short Dental implants with versus without peri-implant bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration
title_sort dental implants with versus without peri-implant bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26330931
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.52292
work_keys_str_mv AT aloyprosperamparo dentalimplantswithversuswithoutperiimplantbonedefectstreatedwithguidedboneregeneration
AT penarrochaoltradavid dentalimplantswithversuswithoutperiimplantbonedefectstreatedwithguidedboneregeneration
AT penarrochadiagomaria dentalimplantswithversuswithoutperiimplantbonedefectstreatedwithguidedboneregeneration
AT penarrochadiagomiguel dentalimplantswithversuswithoutperiimplantbonedefectstreatedwithguidedboneregeneration