Cargando…

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Guided Implant Placement in Sites Preserved with Bioactive Glass Bone Graft after Tooth Extraction: A Controlled Clinical Trial

The goal of the study was to evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL) after 1-year implant placement using a guided implant surgical (GIS) protocol in grafted sockets compared to non-grafted sites. We followed a parallel study design with patients divided into two groups: grafted group (Test group, n = 10)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baskaran, Priyanka, Prakash, P.S.G., Appukuttan, Devapriya, Mugri, Maryam H., Sayed, Mohammed, Subramanian, Sangeetha, Al Wadei, Mohammed Hussain Dafer, Ahmed, Zeeshan Heera, Dewan, Harisha, Porwal, Amit, Balaji, Thodur Madapusi, Varadarajan, Saranya, Heboyan, Artak, Fernandes, Gustavo V. O., Patil, Shankargouda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9036220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35466260
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020043
_version_ 1784693474233155584
author Baskaran, Priyanka
Prakash, P.S.G.
Appukuttan, Devapriya
Mugri, Maryam H.
Sayed, Mohammed
Subramanian, Sangeetha
Al Wadei, Mohammed Hussain Dafer
Ahmed, Zeeshan Heera
Dewan, Harisha
Porwal, Amit
Balaji, Thodur Madapusi
Varadarajan, Saranya
Heboyan, Artak
Fernandes, Gustavo V. O.
Patil, Shankargouda
author_facet Baskaran, Priyanka
Prakash, P.S.G.
Appukuttan, Devapriya
Mugri, Maryam H.
Sayed, Mohammed
Subramanian, Sangeetha
Al Wadei, Mohammed Hussain Dafer
Ahmed, Zeeshan Heera
Dewan, Harisha
Porwal, Amit
Balaji, Thodur Madapusi
Varadarajan, Saranya
Heboyan, Artak
Fernandes, Gustavo V. O.
Patil, Shankargouda
author_sort Baskaran, Priyanka
collection PubMed
description The goal of the study was to evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL) after 1-year implant placement using a guided implant surgical (GIS) protocol in grafted sockets compared to non-grafted sites. We followed a parallel study design with patients divided into two groups: grafted group (Test group, n = 10) and non-grafted group (Control, n = 10). A bioactive glass bone graft was used for grafting. A single edentulous site with a minimum bone height ≥11 mm and bone width ≥6 mm confirmed by cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) was chosen for implant placement. Tapered hybrid implants that were sandblasted and acid-etched (HSA) were placed using the GIS protocol and immediately loaded with a provisional prosthesis. MBL and implant survival rates (ISR) were assessed based on standardized radiographs and clinical exams. Patients were followed up for 1-year post-loading. MBL after one year, in the control group, was −0.31 ± 0.11 mm (mesial) and −0.28 ± 0.09 mm (distal); and in the test group was −0.35 ± 0.11 mm (mesial) and −0.33 ± 0.13 mm (distal), with no statistical significance (p > 0.05). ISR was 100% in both groups after one year. ISR was similar between groups and the marginal bone changes were comparable one year after functional loading, without statistical significance, suggesting that bioactive glass permitted adequate bone formation. The GIS protocol avoided raising flaps and provided a better position to place implants, preserving the marginal bone around implants.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9036220
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90362202022-04-26 Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Guided Implant Placement in Sites Preserved with Bioactive Glass Bone Graft after Tooth Extraction: A Controlled Clinical Trial Baskaran, Priyanka Prakash, P.S.G. Appukuttan, Devapriya Mugri, Maryam H. Sayed, Mohammed Subramanian, Sangeetha Al Wadei, Mohammed Hussain Dafer Ahmed, Zeeshan Heera Dewan, Harisha Porwal, Amit Balaji, Thodur Madapusi Varadarajan, Saranya Heboyan, Artak Fernandes, Gustavo V. O. Patil, Shankargouda Biomimetics (Basel) Article The goal of the study was to evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL) after 1-year implant placement using a guided implant surgical (GIS) protocol in grafted sockets compared to non-grafted sites. We followed a parallel study design with patients divided into two groups: grafted group (Test group, n = 10) and non-grafted group (Control, n = 10). A bioactive glass bone graft was used for grafting. A single edentulous site with a minimum bone height ≥11 mm and bone width ≥6 mm confirmed by cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) was chosen for implant placement. Tapered hybrid implants that were sandblasted and acid-etched (HSA) were placed using the GIS protocol and immediately loaded with a provisional prosthesis. MBL and implant survival rates (ISR) were assessed based on standardized radiographs and clinical exams. Patients were followed up for 1-year post-loading. MBL after one year, in the control group, was −0.31 ± 0.11 mm (mesial) and −0.28 ± 0.09 mm (distal); and in the test group was −0.35 ± 0.11 mm (mesial) and −0.33 ± 0.13 mm (distal), with no statistical significance (p > 0.05). ISR was 100% in both groups after one year. ISR was similar between groups and the marginal bone changes were comparable one year after functional loading, without statistical significance, suggesting that bioactive glass permitted adequate bone formation. The GIS protocol avoided raising flaps and provided a better position to place implants, preserving the marginal bone around implants. MDPI 2022-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9036220/ /pubmed/35466260 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020043 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Baskaran, Priyanka
Prakash, P.S.G.
Appukuttan, Devapriya
Mugri, Maryam H.
Sayed, Mohammed
Subramanian, Sangeetha
Al Wadei, Mohammed Hussain Dafer
Ahmed, Zeeshan Heera
Dewan, Harisha
Porwal, Amit
Balaji, Thodur Madapusi
Varadarajan, Saranya
Heboyan, Artak
Fernandes, Gustavo V. O.
Patil, Shankargouda
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Guided Implant Placement in Sites Preserved with Bioactive Glass Bone Graft after Tooth Extraction: A Controlled Clinical Trial
title Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Guided Implant Placement in Sites Preserved with Bioactive Glass Bone Graft after Tooth Extraction: A Controlled Clinical Trial
title_full Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Guided Implant Placement in Sites Preserved with Bioactive Glass Bone Graft after Tooth Extraction: A Controlled Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Guided Implant Placement in Sites Preserved with Bioactive Glass Bone Graft after Tooth Extraction: A Controlled Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Guided Implant Placement in Sites Preserved with Bioactive Glass Bone Graft after Tooth Extraction: A Controlled Clinical Trial
title_short Clinical and Radiological Outcomes for Guided Implant Placement in Sites Preserved with Bioactive Glass Bone Graft after Tooth Extraction: A Controlled Clinical Trial
title_sort clinical and radiological outcomes for guided implant placement in sites preserved with bioactive glass bone graft after tooth extraction: a controlled clinical trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9036220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35466260
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics7020043
work_keys_str_mv AT baskaranpriyanka clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT prakashpsg clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT appukuttandevapriya clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT mugrimaryamh clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT sayedmohammed clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT subramaniansangeetha clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT alwadeimohammedhussaindafer clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT ahmedzeeshanheera clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT dewanharisha clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT porwalamit clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT balajithodurmadapusi clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT varadarajansaranya clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT heboyanartak clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT fernandesgustavovo clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial
AT patilshankargouda clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesforguidedimplantplacementinsitespreservedwithbioactiveglassbonegraftaftertoothextractionacontrolledclinicaltrial