Cargando…

Use of buccal fat pad to repair post-extraction peri-implant bone defects in the posterior maxilla. A preliminary prospective study

BACKGROUND: Extensive literature exists about the use of the BFP in the treatment of oral defects but, to our knowledge, no article refers to the use of the BFP as a substitute of the membrane barriers for treatment of peri-implant bone defects. The aim was to evaluate the use of the buccal fat pad...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peñarrocha-Diago, María, Alonso-González, Rocío, Aloy-Prósper, Amparo, Peñarrocha-Oltra, David, Camacho, Fabio, 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/PMC4670250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26241450
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.20212
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Extensive literature exists about the use of the BFP in the treatment of oral defects but, to our knowledge, no article refers to the use of the BFP as a substitute of the membrane barriers for treatment of peri-implant bone defects. The aim was to evaluate the use of the buccal fat pad as a coating material for bone grafting in the peri-implant bone defect regeneration of immediate implants placed in the posterior maxilla. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A preliminary prospective study of patients involving immediate implants in which the buccal fat pad was used as a coating material to peri-implant bone defects was carried out. The outcome measures assessed were: postoperative pain and swelling, complications related to buccal fat pad surgery, implant survival and success rates and peri-implant marginal bone loss at 12 months of prosthetic loading. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (17 women and 10 men) with a mean age of 55.3 ± 8.9 years, and a total of 43 implants were included. Two-thirds of the patients reported either no pain or only mild intensity pain and moderate inflammation, two days after surgery. Post-operative period was well tolerated by the patients and no serious complications occurred. None wound dehiscence occurred. Implant survival and success rates were 97.6% and the average marginal bone loss 1 year after loading was 0.58 ± 0.27 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this preliminary study, the use of the buccal fat pad as a coating material for bone grafting in peri-implant bone defects placed in the upper posterior maxilla was a well-tolerated technique by patients; high implant success rate was achieved with a minimal peri-implant marginal bone loss at 12 months of prosthetic loading. Key words:Buccal fat pad, immediate implant, peri-implant bone defect.