Effects of Bone Augmentation on Implant Success and Survival: A Retrospective Analysis With 6-Year Mean Follow-Up

IF 3.7 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1111/cid.70021

Ufuk Tatli, Ali Cavana, Huseyin Can Tukel, Mehmet Emre Benlidayi

{"title":"Effects of Bone Augmentation on Implant Success and Survival: A Retrospective Analysis With 6-Year Mean Follow-Up","authors":"Ufuk Tatli, Ali Cavana, Huseyin Can Tukel, Mehmet Emre Benlidayi","doi":"10.1111/cid.70021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the clinical, radiographic, esthetic outcomes, and success and survival rates of dental implants placed after bone augmentation techniques.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study included a total of 764 patients receiving 764 dental implants between 2009 and 2019. Four hundred implants were placed without bone augmentation (control), and 364 were placed after bone augmentation. Bone augmentation techniques were guided bone regeneration (GBR), ridge split, and onlay bone grafting. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), pink esthetic score (PES) and marginal bone loss (mm) and area (mm<sup>2</sup>) were measured. The study variables of the implants among augmentation groups were compared statistically.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The mean PI and GI scores, and BOP values of the implants in the augmentation and control groups were comparable (<i>p</i> = 0.365, <i>p</i> = 0.230, and <i>p</i> = 0.371 resp.) The mean PD scores of the implants were 2.82 ± 1.22 in the augmentation and 2.54 ± 1.29 in the control groups; the difference was significant (<i>p</i> = 0.002). The mean vertical bone loss of the implants was 0.78 ± 0.70 in augmentation and 0.82 ± 0.82 in the control groups, which was comparable (<i>p</i> = 0.461). The mean PES total values of the implants were 8.30 ± 1.55 in augmentation and 10.04 ± 2.43 in the control groups; the difference was significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the augmentation and control groups in implant survival (99.18% vs. 98%, <i>p</i> = 0.228) and success (82.97% vs. 85.50%, <i>p</i> = 0.389) rates. Significant differences in some study variables were observed among the augmentation groups. The survival and success rates of the implants in GBR (99.21% and 85.04%), ridge split (99.19% and 79.68%), onlay (99.12% and 84.21%), and control (98.00% and 85.50%) groups were similar (<i>p</i> = 0.630 and <i>p</i> = 0.479, resp.) in the 6-year mean follow-up.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The implants placed in augmented bone showed similar cumulative success and survival rates compared to implants placed in natural bone with a 6-year mean follow-up. The augmentation group showed lower esthetic scores. There are some differences in clinical parameters among augmentation groups; however, all the augmentation groups showed similar success and survival rates.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To compare the clinical, radiographic, esthetic outcomes, and success and survival rates of dental implants placed after bone augmentation techniques.

Methods

This retrospective study included a total of 764 patients receiving 764 dental implants between 2009 and 2019. Four hundred implants were placed without bone augmentation (control), and 364 were placed after bone augmentation. Bone augmentation techniques were guided bone regeneration (GBR), ridge split, and onlay bone grafting. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), pink esthetic score (PES) and marginal bone loss (mm) and area (mm²) were measured. The study variables of the implants among augmentation groups were compared statistically.

Results

The mean PI and GI scores, and BOP values of the implants in the augmentation and control groups were comparable (p = 0.365, p = 0.230, and p = 0.371 resp.) The mean PD scores of the implants were 2.82 ± 1.22 in the augmentation and 2.54 ± 1.29 in the control groups; the difference was significant (p = 0.002). The mean vertical bone loss of the implants was 0.78 ± 0.70 in augmentation and 0.82 ± 0.82 in the control groups, which was comparable (p = 0.461). The mean PES total values of the implants were 8.30 ± 1.55 in augmentation and 10.04 ± 2.43 in the control groups; the difference was significant (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the augmentation and control groups in implant survival (99.18% vs. 98%, p = 0.228) and success (82.97% vs. 85.50%, p = 0.389) rates. Significant differences in some study variables were observed among the augmentation groups. The survival and success rates of the implants in GBR (99.21% and 85.04%), ridge split (99.19% and 79.68%), onlay (99.12% and 84.21%), and control (98.00% and 85.50%) groups were similar (p = 0.630 and p = 0.479, resp.) in the 6-year mean follow-up.

Conclusion

The implants placed in augmented bone showed similar cumulative success and survival rates compared to implants placed in natural bone with a 6-year mean follow-up. The augmentation group showed lower esthetic scores. There are some differences in clinical parameters among augmentation groups; however, all the augmentation groups showed similar success and survival rates.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

13.90%

发文量

103

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.