Buccal bone thickness at dental implants in the maxillary anterior region with large bony defects at time of immediate implant placement: A 1‐year cohort study

Abstract

Background There is lack of studies regarding preservation and possible changes in BBT at dental implants. Purpose To assess, on cone beam computer tomograms, the presence of bone at the time of tooth extraction in the maxillary esthetic region and the mean buccal bone thickness 1 month and 1 year after final restoration placement in patients with large bony defects. Material and Methods In a cohort study, patients were selected presenting a failing tooth with a large bony defect (test group [ n = 20]: large bony defect , immediate placed implant and delayed provisionalization). Results were compared with a group in which patients presented a failing tooth without or with a small bony defect: (control group [ n = 20]: without or small bony defect , immediate placed implant and delayed provisionalization). Cone beam computer tomograms were made preoperatively, and 1 month and 1 year after placement of the restoration, and buccal bone thickness was analyzed. Results In both groups approximately 1 mm of buccal bone thickness was present after 1 month and 1 year, without a significant difference between the groups. Conclusion In patients with large bony defects at a failing tooth it was possible to create a bone layer buccally of the implant and this bone layer remained stable during a 1‐year follow‐up; there were no significant differences between thickness of buccal bone at 1 month and 1 year in patients with large buccal bony defects and patients without or with small bony defects.

Immediate Placement and Restoration of a New Tapered Implant System in the Aesthetic Region: A Report of Three Cases

“…The three studied patients in this report presented with satisfying improvements as expressed in a PES score of 7.0 and patient questionnaire (VAS-scale score of 90.0). This is in line with other studies on immediate placement and provisionalization protocols, where PES scores of 7:5 ± 1:6 [22] and 6:8 ± 1:5 [23] were published on immediate implant placement protocols. All patients reached the threshold of clinical acceptability (score ≥ 6) [15].…”

Effect of connective tissue grafting on buccal bone changes based on cone beam computed tomography scans in the esthetic zone of single immediate implants: A 1‐year randomized controlled trial

“…This suggestion is supported by the results of a recent cohort‐study, which showed that a new buccal bone wall can be created when grafting the implant‐socket gap buccal of the immediately placed implant. This wall buccal of the implant was well preserved for at least 1 year after immediate implant placement 29 . The created buccal bone wall even had a sufficient width in the test group, which showed more pronounced bone resorption than in the control group, to support the overlying peri‐implant soft tissues and to preserve the mid‐buccal mucosal level.…”

“…A small envelope flap was prepared at the mid‐buccal aspect, which disrupted the vascularization between the mucosa and periosteum. The disruption in the blood supply, together with the bone remodeling process after tooth extraction, 7,8 could have induced further loss of mid‐buccal bone 29,30 . Moreover, adding a CTG seems to have a larger effect on loss of BBT than the gingival phenotype.…”

Immediate placement of single implants with or without immediate provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic region: A 5‐year comparative study

“…More details of the methods for measuring buccal bone thickness and the results of the one‐year follow‐up were described by Slagter, Raghoebar, et al (2015), Slagter et al (2017) and Meijer et al (2019).…”