Cargando…

Immediate placement and provisionalization of implants in the aesthetic zone with or without a connective tissue graft: A 1‐year randomized controlled trial and volumetric study

OBJECTIVE: To volumetrically compare peri‐implant mid‐facial soft tissue changes in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone, with or without a connective tissue graft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients were included. All implants were placed immediately after extract...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Nimwegen, Wouter G., Raghoebar, Gerry M., Zuiderveld, Elise G., Jung, Ronald E., Meijer, Henny J. A., Mühlemann, Sven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099353/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29806181
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13258
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To volumetrically compare peri‐implant mid‐facial soft tissue changes in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone, with or without a connective tissue graft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients were included. All implants were placed immediately after extraction. After randomization, in one group, a connective tissue graft (test group, n = 30) was inserted at the buccal aspect of the implant. The other group (control group, n = 30) received no connective tissue graft. Clinical parameters, digital photographs and conventional impressions were obtained before extraction (T (pre)) and at 12 months following definitive crown placement (T (12)). The casts were digitized by a laboratory scanner, and a volumetric analysis was performed between T (pre) and T (12). RESULTS: Twenty‐five patients in each group were available for analysis at T (12). Volumetric change, transformed to a mean (±SD) change in thickness, was −0.68 ± 0.59 mm (test) and −0.49 ± 0.54 mm (control) with a non‐significant difference between groups (p = .189). The mid‐facial mucosa level was significantly different between both groups (p = .014), with a mean (±SD) change of +0.20 ± 0.70 mm (test) and −0.48 ± 1.13 mm (control). The Pink Esthetic Score was similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a CTG in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone did not result in less mucosal volume loss after 12 months, leading to the assumption that a CTG cannot fully compensate for the underlying facial bone loss, although a significantly more coronally located mid‐facial mucosa level was found when a CTG was performed.