Flapless implant surgery: a 2-year follow-up study of 40 implants

Sunitha, R; Sapthagiri, Enukurthi

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2011.12.027

Cited by 49 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The alleged reasons to choose the flapless technique are to minimize the possibility of postoperative peri-implant tissue loss and to overcome the challenge of soft tissue management during or after surgery [2]. Other alleged advantages of the flapless implant surgery include less traumatic surgery, decreased operative time, rapid postsurgical healing, fewer postoperative complications and increased patient comfort [3], [4]. A disadvantage of this technique is that the true topography of the underlying available bone cannot be observed because the mucogingival tissues are not raised, which may increase the risk for unwanted perforations which in its turn could lead to esthetical problems or implant losses [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A disadvantage of this technique is that the true topography of the underlying available bone cannot be observed because the mucogingival tissues are not raised, which may increase the risk for unwanted perforations which in its turn could lead to esthetical problems or implant losses [5]. Moreover, there is the potential for thermal damage secondary to reduced access for external irrigation during osteotomy preparation [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flapless versus Conventional Flapped Dental Implant Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for patients being rehabilitated by dental implants being inserted by a flapless surgical procedure versus the open flap technique, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not. The search strategy resulted in 23 publications. The I2 statistic was used to express the percentage of the total variation across studies due to heterogeneity. The inverse variance method was used for random-effects model or fixed-effects model, when indicated. The estimates of relative effect were expressed in risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) in millimeters. Sixteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, whereas two studies were considered of moderate risk of bias, and five studies of low risk of bias. The funnel plots indicated absence of publication bias for the three outcomes analyzed. The test for overall effect showed that the difference between the procedures (flapless vs. open flap surgery) significantly affect the implant failure rates (P = 0.03), with a RR of 1.75 (95% CI 1.07–2.86). However, a sensitivity analysis revealed differences when studies of high and low risk of bias were pooled separately. Thus, the results must be interpreted carefully. No apparent significant effects of flapless technique on the occurrence of postoperative infection (P = 0.96; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.23–4.03) or on the marginal bone loss (P = 0.16; MD −0.07 mm, 95% CI −0.16–0.03) were observed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flapless versus Conventional Flapped Dental Implant Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shibu et al in 2008 also proved low bone resorption using the flapless technique during 3 months post-surgical period 18 , while, Bayounis et al in 2011 proved better peri-implants healing using the flapless than that using the flapped technique 19 . The possible explanation is that the flapless surgery has also been reported to preserve the circulation of the peri-implant tissues and accelerate healing at the surgical site, thereby allowing the patient to resume regular oral hygiene maintenance immediately after implant placement 20 . In addition, the flapless surgical procedures are typically performed trans-mucosally without elevating the soft tissue covering the alveolar bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main benefit of this technique is the reduction in the level of trauma to the tissue, as the periosteum layer remains intact. Not disturbing the periosteum layer allows greater chance to preserve alveolar bone levels, improve blood supply to the implant site, and reduce patient discomfort 20 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between Flapped and Flapless Implant Techniques by Measuring Crestal Bone Level: A Prospective Radiographical Trial

Abdul-Saheb

Fatihallah

2015

Iraqi dent. j.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Previously, the flapped dental implant surgery was the most common implant placement procedure. With the development of different implantation techniques, the flapless surgery is now available for implant placement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the flapless surgical technique for implant placement on bone level compared with the flapped surgery technique with the aid of panoramic imaging. Materials and methods:The study comprised 10 patients, 20 dental implants investigated, two implants placed for each patient (one implant placed with a flapped procedure and the other with a flapless surgical technique). Utilizing panoramic view pre-and post-surgical treatment, the crestal bone level at different intervals (1 week, 4 weeks and 12 week) has been compared. Results: When comparing flapped and flapless implant surgical procedures at different time intervals, the flapless surgical technique showed less bone level reduction, on the other hand no significant results obtained when comparing the surgical techniques in the maxillary and mandibular arches. Conclusion: Flapless implant placement provides less bone level reduction compared with the flapped technique.

show abstract

“…The cause of the increased initial bone loss within the first year after insertion in not fully understood, and based on data available to date there is evidence that effect of surgical trauma caused by raising a mucroperiosteal flab is a subject of scientific investigation [1][2][3][4] The idea that the attendant temporary interruption of the blood supply to the outer layers of the bone could possibly cause increased alveolar ridge resorption [1][2][3][4][5] Maier reported a prospective cohort study for measurement of a mean cumulative crestal bone loss after one year of implant placement with flapped or flapless surgery. It was reported that flapless implant insertion caused less peri-implant loss than implant insertion with flap preparation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flapless Dental Implant: Contemporary Trends in Literature Coverage

Al-Almaie¹

2017

BJSTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flapless implant surgery: a 2-year follow-up study of 40 implants

Cited by 49 publications

References 15 publications

Flapless versus Conventional Flapped Dental Implant Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Flapless versus Conventional Flapped Dental Implant Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Comparison Between Flapped and Flapless Implant Techniques by Measuring Crestal Bone Level: A Prospective Radiographical Trial

Flapless Dental Implant: Contemporary Trends in Literature Coverage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About