| 1. |
- Jensen, Simon S., et al.
(author)
-
Group 1 ITI Consensus Report : The role of bone dimensions and soft tissue augmentation procedures on the stability of clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of implant treatment
- 2023
-
In: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0905-7161 .- 1600-0501. ; 34, s. 43-49
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives: The aims of Working Group 1 were to address the role (i) of the buccolingual bone dimensions after implant placement in healed alveolar ridge sites on the occurrence of biologic and aesthetic complications, and (ii) of soft tissue augmentation (STA) on the stability of clinical, radiographic, and patient-related outcomes of implant treatments.Materials and Methods: Two systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, recommendations for future research, and reflections on patient perspectives were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire group of experts. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.Results: Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occurred after implant placement in healed sites, and a reduction in buccal bone wall thickness (BBW) of 0.3 to 1.8 mm was observed. In healed sites with a BBW of <1.5 mm after implant placement, increased vertical bone loss, and less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were demonstrated. Implants with buccal dehiscence defects undergoing simultaneous guided bone regeneration, showed less vertical bone loss, and more favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes, compared to non-augmented dehiscence defects during initial healing. At healthy single implant sites, probing depths, bleeding and plaque scores, and interproximal bone levels evaluated at 1 year, remained stable for up to 5 years, with or without STA. When single implant sites were augmented with connective tissue grafts, either for soft tissue phenotype modification or buccal soft tissue dehiscence, stable levels of the soft tissue margin, and stable or even increased soft tissue thickness and/or width of keratinized mucosa could be observed from 1 to 5 years. In contrast, non-augmented sites were more prone to show apical migration of the soft tissue margin in the long-term. Favorable aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes after STA were documented to be stable from 1 to 5 years.Results: Dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occurred after implant placement in healed sites, and a reduction in buccal bone wall thickness (BBW) of 0.3 to 1.8 mm was observed. In healed sites with a BBW of <1.5 mm after implant placement, increased vertical bone loss, and less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes were demonstrated. Implants with buccal dehiscence defects undergoing simultaneous guided bone regeneration, showed less vertical bone loss, and more favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes, compared to non-augmented dehiscence defects during initial healing. At healthy single implant sites, probing depths, bleeding and plaque scores, and interproximal bone levels evaluated at 1 year, remained stable for up to 5 years, with or without STA. When single implant sites were augmented with connective tissue grafts, either for soft tissue phenotype modification or buccal soft tissue dehiscence, stable levels of the soft tissue margin, and stable or even increased soft tissue thickness and/or width of keratinized mucosa could be observed from 1 to 5 years. In contrast, non-augmented sites were more prone to show apical migration of the soft tissue margin in the long-term. Favorable aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes after STA were documented to be stable from 1 to 5 years. Conclusions: It is concluded that dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge occur after implant placement in healed sites and that sites with a thin BBW after implant placement are prone to exhibit less favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes. In addition, it is concluded that STA can provide stable clinical, radiographic, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes in the medium and long-term.
|
|
| 2. |
- Buser, Daniel, et al.
(author)
-
Guided bone regeneration in implant dentistry: Basic principle, progress over 35 years, and recent research activities
- 2023
-
In: Periodontology 2000. - 0906-6713 .- 1600-0757. ; 93:1, s. 9-25
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Bone augmentation procedures are frequent today in implant patients, since an implant should be circumferentially anchored in bone at completion of bone healing to have a good long-term stability. The best documented surgical technique to achieve this goal is guided bone regeneration (GBR) utilizing barrier membranes in combination with bone fillers. This clinical review paper reflects 35 years of development and progress with GBR. In the 1990s, GBR was developed by defining the indications for GBR, examining various barrier membranes, bone grafts, and bone substitutes. Complications were identified and reduced by modifications of the surgical technique. Today, the selection criteria for various surgical approaches are much better understood, in particular, in post-extraction implant placement. In the majority of patients, biodegradable collagen membranes are used, mainly for horizontal bone augmentation, whereas bioinert PTFE membranes are preferred for vertical ridge augmentation. The leading surgeons are using a composite graft with autogenous bone chips to accelerate bone formation, in combination with a low-substitution bone filer to better maintain the augmented bone volume over time. In addition, major efforts have been made since the millenium change to reduce surgical trauma and patient morbidity as much as possible. At the end, some open questions related to GBR are discussed.
|
|
