Volumetric changes following ridge preservation or spontaneous healing and early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration

Naenni, Nadja; Bienz, Stefan P.; Muñoz, Fernando; Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.; Jung, Ronald E.; Thoma, Daniel S.

doi:10.1111/jcpe.12860

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study by Naenni and co‐workers (Naenni et al, ) performed GBR procedures simultaneously with implant placement to treat buccal dehiscencies or fenestration type defects, using either a native collagen membrane or and titanium‐reinforced non‐resorbable membrane. Although the number of completely covered defects was not reported, the percentage of defect resolution (85% with a resorbable membrane and 90.7% with a non‐resorbable membrane) was significantly higher than the values that were obtained in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequently, alveolar ridge preservation techniques (ARP) have been proposed to, at least to a certain extent, overcome this resorption process. Although evidence shows that these ARP have their benefit in limiting the resorption process, they do not totally overcome this problem (Araújo, Silva, Mendonça, & Lindhe, 2015;Naenni et al, 2017;Temmerman et al, 2016). The application of particulate xenogenic or allogenic materials covered with an absorbable collagen membrane or rapidly absorbable collagen sponge seems to be associated with the most favourable outcomes in terms of horizontal ridge preservation (Avila-Ortiz, Chambrone, & Vignoletti, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Temmerman

Cortellini

Dessel

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the use of a xenograft is not inferior to the use of xenograft and autogenous bone chips in treating dehiscences at implant placement. Materials and Methods: After implant placement, leaving a dehiscence, control sites were treated using a composite graft (autogenous bone chips and xenograft) and at the test sites 100% xenograft was used. Both sites were covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Dehiscences were measured clinically at implant placement and at re-entry. CBCT was taken immediately after implant placement and after 4 months. Results: In total, 28 GBR procedures were performed in 14 patients. On average, the change in vertical defect height was 2.07 mm (46.7%-test group) and 2.28 mm (50.9%-control group) (p > .05). The horizontal defect width at the implant shoulder change on average 1.85 mm (40.5%-test group) and 1.75 mm (40.9%-control group) (p > .05). On average, a loss in augmentation thickness of 0.45 mm (68.9%-test group) and 0.64 mm (55.5% control group) between implant placement and augmentation and abutment surgery was obtained at the implant shoulder. Conclusion: Both treatment modalities seem to work to a certain extent. At implant shoulder level, the augmentation thickness seems to be disappeared after the healing phase. (NCT03946020).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Temmerman

Cortellini

Dessel

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with some reported studies in canine, the unfavorable alveolar bone atrophy at horizontal and vertical dimensions in Blank group was detected in our study regarding micro-CT measurements. [41,42] As shown in Table 1 and 2, the collapse of hard tissues with no treatment applied was mainly appeared at coronal and middle part horizontally and both buccal/lingual sides vertically. In particular, at both time-points, all grafting materials greatly reduced the dimensional diminutions of the alveolar ridge, which indicated all grafting materials we used in this study shared a similar capacity regarding the maintenance of alveolar ridge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ridge preservation applying a novel hydrogel for early angiogenesis and osteogenesis evaluation: an experimental study in canine

Yuan

Chen

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ridge preservation is universally acknowledged as the conventional method for the post-extraction healing yet there are no standard materials for the ideal healing outcome. Herein, a composite gel comprising gelatin nanoparticles (GNPs) and injectable platelet-rich-fibrin (i-PRF) as the potential candidate for extracted socket healing is introduced. The combination of GNPs and i-PRF not only possesses favorable mechanical properties to withstand external force but also accelerate the blood clotting time significantly. In addition, six beagle dogs were adopted to assess the angiogenic and osteogenic capacity of GNPs + i-PRF gel in vivo. The GNPs + i-PRF gel significantly produced the most blood vessels area, woven bone and low osteoclast activity in extracted sockets at 2 weeks postoperation and remarkably generated corticalization on the alveolar ridge crest at 8 weeks postoperation according to histological results. Therefore, GNPs + i-PRF gel can be recommended as the candidate grafting material regarding ridge preservation for its cost effectiveness, excellent biocompatibility, facilitation of blood clotting and favorable capacity of promoting angiogenesis and osteogenesis.

show abstract

“…However, T2DM patients often face the challenge of atrophic alveolar bone width at implant sites [3]. The minor and moderate atrophic ridge often requires horizontal bone augmentation by guided bone regeneration (GBR)with the combination of bone graft materials and barrier membranes [4]. It is reported that the hyperglycemia impacts the clinical effect of dental implants [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic variables related to implants with simultaneous grafts among type 2 diabetic patients treated with different hypoglycemic medications: a retrospective study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The influence of different hypoglycemic agents on peri-implant variables among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients is still unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the radiographic marginal bone loss and clinical parameters around implants in patients using different hypoglycemic agents. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, the dental implant records of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients who met the inclusion criteria were collected. The patients using only single medication as follows: insulin, metformin, or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs, were grouped according to their medication. These patients received implant placement with the same initial status, and all the prosthesis restorations were cement-retained ceramic crowns. The peri-implant marginal bone levels were evaluated by periapical radiographs immediately after implant placement and at 1 and 2-year follow-up visits. The baseline characteristics were compared among groups. The peri-implant radiographic marginal bone loss and clinical parameters were preliminarily compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test, and then the covariates were controlled by covariance analysis. Bonferroni post hoc adjustment test was performed for the multiple comparisons. Results After a review of more than 7000 medical records, a total of 150 patients with 308 implants at 1-year follow-up were assessed. The peri-implant marginal bone loss in the GLP-1 drug group was significantly smaller than the insulin group and metformin group (P < 0.01). The radiographic bone loss in the metformin group was higher than the insulin group (P < 0.05). Some of these included patients were lost to follow-up. Only 74 patients with 129 implants completed the 2-year follow-up. The radiographic bone loss in the metformin group was still higher than the insulin group (P < 0.05) and GLP-1 group (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the BOP (+) and the mean PD among groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions The radiographic variables were not exactly the same among the patients with different hypoglycemic agents at both the 1 and 2-year follow-ups. After ensuring consistency in baseline characteristics, the positive effect of GLP-1 drugs on peri-implant bone remodeling may be no less than insulin or metformin. More studies are needed to verify the direct effect of these drugs on peri-implant bone. Clinical trial registration number ChiCTR2000034211 (retrospectively registered).

show abstract

Volumetric changes following ridge preservation or spontaneous healing and early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration

Abstract: Irrespective of the treatment modality and the healing period, part of the ridge contour was lost. Early implant placement after ridge preservation without additional GBR resulted in a more stable ridge contour after implant placement compared to controls.

Cited by 13 publications

References 27 publications

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

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

Ridge preservation applying a novel hydrogel for early angiogenesis and osteogenesis evaluation: an experimental study in canine

Clinical and radiographic variables related to implants with simultaneous grafts among type 2 diabetic patients treated with different hypoglycemic medications: a retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About