Cargando…

Alveolar bone remodeling in virtually planned, bone-grafted vs non-grafted guided flapless implant surgery in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study

PURPOSE: In patients who underwent virtual planning and guided flapless implant surgery for teeth missing in the anterior maxilla, we compared buccal bone loss between those treated with and without autogenous bone augmentation. METHODS: Of 22 patients with teeth missing because of trauma or aplasia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Åkesson, Fredrik, Zamure-Damberga, Liene, Lundgren, Stefan, Sjöström, Mats
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9938045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35175458
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10006-022-01048-z
_version_ 1784890555334918144
author Åkesson, Fredrik
Zamure-Damberga, Liene
Lundgren, Stefan
Sjöström, Mats
author_facet Åkesson, Fredrik
Zamure-Damberga, Liene
Lundgren, Stefan
Sjöström, Mats
author_sort Åkesson, Fredrik
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: In patients who underwent virtual planning and guided flapless implant surgery for teeth missing in the anterior maxilla, we compared buccal bone loss between those treated with and without autogenous bone augmentation. METHODS: Of 22 patients with teeth missing because of trauma or aplasia, 10 (18 implant sites) were reconstructed with buccally placed bone graft harvested from the mandibular ramus, and 12 were non-reconstructed (16 sites). Baseline cone-beam computed tomography allowed for implant planning using the NobelClinician® software and was performed again at 1 year after functional loading. The marginal bone level was assessed radiographically at post-implant baseline and at follow-up. RESULTS: At follow-up, buccal bone loss differed significantly between groups at the central level of the implant (p = 0.0005) but not at the coronal level (p = 0.329). The mean marginal bone level change was 0.6 mm, with no significant between-group difference (p = 0.876). The actual implant position often deviated in the vertical or sagittal plane by an average of 0.3–0.6 mm from the planned position. CONCLUSION: Compared with non-reconstructed patients, reconstructed patients experienced significantly more buccal bone loss at the central level of implants. The groups did not differ at the coronal level or in marginal bone loss, possibly because of the more augmented bone at the central level among reconstructed patients. Differences between planned versus actual implant positions should be considered in situations of limited bone volume at the planned implant site.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9938045
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99380452023-02-19 Alveolar bone remodeling in virtually planned, bone-grafted vs non-grafted guided flapless implant surgery in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study Åkesson, Fredrik Zamure-Damberga, Liene Lundgren, Stefan Sjöström, Mats Oral Maxillofac Surg Original Article PURPOSE: In patients who underwent virtual planning and guided flapless implant surgery for teeth missing in the anterior maxilla, we compared buccal bone loss between those treated with and without autogenous bone augmentation. METHODS: Of 22 patients with teeth missing because of trauma or aplasia, 10 (18 implant sites) were reconstructed with buccally placed bone graft harvested from the mandibular ramus, and 12 were non-reconstructed (16 sites). Baseline cone-beam computed tomography allowed for implant planning using the NobelClinician® software and was performed again at 1 year after functional loading. The marginal bone level was assessed radiographically at post-implant baseline and at follow-up. RESULTS: At follow-up, buccal bone loss differed significantly between groups at the central level of the implant (p = 0.0005) but not at the coronal level (p = 0.329). The mean marginal bone level change was 0.6 mm, with no significant between-group difference (p = 0.876). The actual implant position often deviated in the vertical or sagittal plane by an average of 0.3–0.6 mm from the planned position. CONCLUSION: Compared with non-reconstructed patients, reconstructed patients experienced significantly more buccal bone loss at the central level of implants. The groups did not differ at the coronal level or in marginal bone loss, possibly because of the more augmented bone at the central level among reconstructed patients. Differences between planned versus actual implant positions should be considered in situations of limited bone volume at the planned implant site. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-02-17 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9938045/ /pubmed/35175458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10006-022-01048-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Åkesson, Fredrik
Zamure-Damberga, Liene
Lundgren, Stefan
Sjöström, Mats
Alveolar bone remodeling in virtually planned, bone-grafted vs non-grafted guided flapless implant surgery in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study
title Alveolar bone remodeling in virtually planned, bone-grafted vs non-grafted guided flapless implant surgery in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study
title_full Alveolar bone remodeling in virtually planned, bone-grafted vs non-grafted guided flapless implant surgery in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study
title_fullStr Alveolar bone remodeling in virtually planned, bone-grafted vs non-grafted guided flapless implant surgery in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study
title_full_unstemmed Alveolar bone remodeling in virtually planned, bone-grafted vs non-grafted guided flapless implant surgery in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study
title_short Alveolar bone remodeling in virtually planned, bone-grafted vs non-grafted guided flapless implant surgery in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study
title_sort alveolar bone remodeling in virtually planned, bone-grafted vs non-grafted guided flapless implant surgery in the anterior maxilla: a cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9938045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35175458
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10006-022-01048-z
work_keys_str_mv AT akessonfredrik alveolarboneremodelinginvirtuallyplannedbonegraftedvsnongraftedguidedflaplessimplantsurgeryintheanteriormaxillaacrosssectionalretrospectivefollowupstudy
AT zamuredambergaliene alveolarboneremodelinginvirtuallyplannedbonegraftedvsnongraftedguidedflaplessimplantsurgeryintheanteriormaxillaacrosssectionalretrospectivefollowupstudy
AT lundgrenstefan alveolarboneremodelinginvirtuallyplannedbonegraftedvsnongraftedguidedflaplessimplantsurgeryintheanteriormaxillaacrosssectionalretrospectivefollowupstudy
AT sjostrommats alveolarboneremodelinginvirtuallyplannedbonegraftedvsnongraftedguidedflaplessimplantsurgeryintheanteriormaxillaacrosssectionalretrospectivefollowupstudy