A multicenter randomized controlled trial using a novel collagen membrane for guided bone regeneration at dehisced single implant sites: Outcome at prosthetic delivery and at 1‐year follow‐up

Abstract

Objectives:To compare clinical performance of a novel resorbable non-cross-linked collagen membrane (CXP) with a reference membrane (non-cross-linked resorbable membrane; BG) for simultaneous implant placement and guided bone regeneration (GBR) at dehisced single implant sites. Materials and methods:Preliminary data from this randomized controlled trial were reported previously; this is the 12-month report. The primary outcome measure was defected height at 6 months post-GBR. Secondary outcomes included implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) and success rate since placement; bone level changes, pink esthetic score (PES), and patient satisfaction since definitive prosthesis delivery; patient quality of life since pretreatment; and the 1-year bleeding index. Non-parametric statistical analyses were performed.Results: Among patients, 24 were treated with CXP and 25 with BG. The 1-year implant CSR and success rate were 100% (n = 42). Bone level change between definitive prosthetic delivery and 1 year was not significantly different between the CXP and BG groups (BG + 0.42 mm, CXP + 0.01 mm). The PES increased from 7.55 to 8.10 for the CXP group and from 6.48 to 7.48 for the BG group; 1-year bleeding indices were 0 (16 CXP, 18 BG) and 1 (4 CXP, 2 BG). Patient quality of life changed from an OHIP-14 score of 6.5 at pretreatment to 1.9 at 1 year. Overall satisfaction (visual analogue score) with function and esthetics was 9.9 and 9.7, respectively. Inter-group differences were not significant for assessed outcomes. No device-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions:The use of CXP and BG for simultaneous implant placement and GBR at dehisced implant sites similarly reduced defect height and improved secondary measures, indicating non-inferiority.

Peri‐implant tissue conditions at implants treated with Sub‐periosteal Peri‐implant Augmented Layer technique: A retrospective case series

“…Recent data have shown that even slowly resorbable graft biomaterials, such as DBBM, are associated with a substantial reduction of the grafted area at 12‐month radiographic evaluation following endosinusal augmentation procedures (Franceschetti et al., 2019). However, the magnitude of RBL observed in the present study is limited compared to that reported for implants placed with concomitant GBR or in native bone (Urban et al., 2019) and implants presenting an untreated buccal dehiscence (Jung et al., 2017).…”

“…However, the magnitude of RBL observed in the present study is limited compared to that reported for implants placed with concomitant GBR or in native bone (Urban et al, 2019) and implants presenting an untreated buccal dehiscence (Jung et al, 2017).…”

A retrospective cohort study of how alveolar ridge preservation affects the need of alveolar ridge augmentation at posterior tooth implant sites

“…Therefore, without alveolar ridge augmentation to increase the buccal width and coronal height, the dental implant will assume a more lingual or palatal position, resulting in a poor emergence profile or even overhang prosthesis. Hence, an alveolar ridge augmentation before dental implant treatment is necessary to facilitate a favorable prosthetic position of the dental implant [29,30]. Notably, the cumulative success rate and survival rate of dental implants in the native bone and regenerative bone were similar [31,32].…”

Bovine‐derived xenograft in combination with autogenous bone chips versus xenograft alone for the augmentation of bony dehiscences around oral implants: A randomized, controlled, split‐mouth clinical trial

“…Arguably, the chosen time frame of re‐entry might have influenced the results. Although there is no clear guideline on when to perform abutment connection after a GBR procedure, most studies performed second‐stage surgery after 6 months (Urban et al, ; Van Assche et al, ). A second shortcoming of the present study is the lack of information on soft tissue characteristics such as thickness, keratinization and attachment.…”