Rehabilitation Using Implants with Sloped Platform Edge vs. Standard Platform with Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Control Clinical Trial

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dentistry Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI:10.3390/dj12070205
I. Ashurko, Andrey Samsonov, Anna I. Galyas, Marina Petukhova, Svetlana V. Tarasenko, A. Unkovskiy
{"title":"Rehabilitation Using Implants with Sloped Platform Edge vs. Standard Platform with Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Control Clinical Trial","authors":"I. Ashurko, Andrey Samsonov, Anna I. Galyas, Marina Petukhova, Svetlana V. Tarasenko, A. Unkovskiy","doi":"10.3390/dj12070205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to evaluate the vertical bone loss after using different techniques: sloped implants or standard implants with guided bone regeneration. Patients with tooth gap and horizontal bone deficiency were randomly allocated to the test group (implants with sloped platform—SLP) and control group (standard design implants with guided bone regeneration—GBR). The primary outcome was bone loss (6 months after finishing the prosthetic treatment). Secondary outcomes included the following: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), post-operative edema, keratinized mucosa width, and pink aesthetic score (PES). The average bone loss at 6 months was 0.23 ± 0.15 mm and 1.03 ± 0.37 mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The SLP group was characterized by lower pain intensity the first 7 days (p < 0.001), lower post-operative edema (p < 0.001), lower consumption of NSAIDs on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (p = 0.002, <0.001, <0.001, and 0.008), and lower total OHIP-14 (p = 0.047) on day 7. The keratinized mucosa width was 3.7 (3.4–4.0) mm and 2 (1.4–2.0) mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The preservation of the mesial, distal papillae, and the level of soft tissue correspondence were significantly higher in the SLP group (p = 0.003, 0.038, <0.001). In the SLP group, more natural color and better texture of soft tissues were found (p = 0.048, p = 0.041). The use of implants with a sloped platform resulted in superior outcomes compared to the standard-design implants with GBR.","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12070205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the vertical bone loss after using different techniques: sloped implants or standard implants with guided bone regeneration. Patients with tooth gap and horizontal bone deficiency were randomly allocated to the test group (implants with sloped platform—SLP) and control group (standard design implants with guided bone regeneration—GBR). The primary outcome was bone loss (6 months after finishing the prosthetic treatment). Secondary outcomes included the following: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), post-operative edema, keratinized mucosa width, and pink aesthetic score (PES). The average bone loss at 6 months was 0.23 ± 0.15 mm and 1.03 ± 0.37 mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The SLP group was characterized by lower pain intensity the first 7 days (p < 0.001), lower post-operative edema (p < 0.001), lower consumption of NSAIDs on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (p = 0.002, <0.001, <0.001, and 0.008), and lower total OHIP-14 (p = 0.047) on day 7. The keratinized mucosa width was 3.7 (3.4–4.0) mm and 2 (1.4–2.0) mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The preservation of the mesial, distal papillae, and the level of soft tissue correspondence were significantly higher in the SLP group (p = 0.003, 0.038, <0.001). In the SLP group, more natural color and better texture of soft tissues were found (p = 0.048, p = 0.041). The use of implants with a sloped platform resulted in superior outcomes compared to the standard-design implants with GBR.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用带倾斜平台边缘的种植体与带引导骨再生的标准平台进行康复:随机对照临床试验
这项研究的目的是评估使用不同技术(倾斜种植体或具有引导骨再生功能的标准种植体)后的垂直骨质流失情况。有牙缝和水平骨缺失的患者被随机分配到试验组(带倾斜平台的种植体-SLP)和对照组(带引导骨再生的标准设计种植体-GBR)。主要结果是骨质流失(完成修复治疗 6 个月后)。次要结果包括:患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)、术后水肿、角化粘膜宽度和粉色美学评分(PES)。6 个月时,SLP 组和 GBR 组的平均骨量损失分别为 0.23 ± 0.15 毫米和 1.03 ± 0.37 毫米。SLP组在前7天的疼痛强度较低(p < 0.001),术后水肿较轻(p < 0.001),第1、3、5和7天的非甾体抗炎药用量较少(p = 0.002、<0.001、<0.001和0.008),第7天的总OHIP-14较低(p = 0.047)。SLP组和GBR组的角化粘膜宽度分别为3.7(3.4-4.0)毫米和2(1.4-2.0)毫米。SLP组中、远端乳头的保存率和软组织对应水平明显更高(P = 0.003,0.038,<0.001)。SLP组的软组织颜色更自然,质地更好(p = 0.048,p = 0.041)。与带 GBR 的标准设计种植体相比,使用带倾斜平台的种植体效果更佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Asymmetric Dimethylarginine as a Potential Mediator in the Association between Periodontitis and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence. Effect of a Novel Ergonomic Sheath on Dental Device-Related Muscle Work, Fatigue and Comfort-A Pilot Clinical Study. Evaluating Treatment Modalities for Reducing Recurrence in Central Giant Cell Granuloma: A Narrative Review. Influence of Direct Coronal Restoration Materials on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars: An In Vitro Study. Clinical Performance of Extra-Short (≤5.5 mm) Compared to Longer Implants Splinted under the Same Prosthesis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1