{"title":"Tenting Screw Technique for Horizontal Alveolar Bone Augmentation in the Anterior Maxilla: A 1‐ to 5‐Year Retrospective Study","authors":"Siyuan Wang, Xiaoyu Chen, Weijie Wu, Zhaoting Ling, Sijia Yang, Xiaoting Shen, Fuming He","doi":"10.1111/clr.14428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesTo evaluate the 1‐ to 5‐year outcomes of dental implants placed with the tenting screw (TS) technique and to compare their clinical efficacy with conventional guided bone regeneration (GBR).MethodsThis retrospective study involved implants placed with TS or conventional GBR technique. Horizontal and volumetric bone gains were evaluated by reconstructing cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Complications, biological parameters, esthetic scores, and patients' satisfaction were recorded.ResultsA total of 75 implants in 42 patients (20 defect sites in TS group and 22 in GBR group) were included in this study. With a 1‐ to 5‐year follow‐up, no implants failed, resulting in a 100% implant survival rate. After healing periods, the TS group demonstrated horizontal bone gains of 2.85 ± 1.42 mm, 3.37 ± 1.79 mm, and 3.27 ± 1.68 mm at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the implant shoulder, significantly exceeding the GBR group (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.009, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002, respectively). Consistently, three‐dimensional volumetric bone resorption rates for the TS and GBR groups after healing periods were 16.5% and 29.3% (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001), increasing to 36.7% and 50.7% after follow‐up periods (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.001). The overall PPDs in the TS group were significantly smaller than those in the GBR group (2.50 (2.25, 2.50) mm vs. 2.50 (2.25, 2.75) mm, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.038). No other significant differences were observed in terms of peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction.ConclusionsConsidering the superior bone augmentation outcomes and comparable peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patient satisfaction to the conventional GBR technique, the tenting screw technique emerges as a reliable treatment option for reconstructing atrophic alveolar ridges in the anterior maxilla.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"183 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14428","RegionNum":1,"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
ObjectivesTo evaluate the 1‐ to 5‐year outcomes of dental implants placed with the tenting screw (TS) technique and to compare their clinical efficacy with conventional guided bone regeneration (GBR).MethodsThis retrospective study involved implants placed with TS or conventional GBR technique. Horizontal and volumetric bone gains were evaluated by reconstructing cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. Complications, biological parameters, esthetic scores, and patients' satisfaction were recorded.ResultsA total of 75 implants in 42 patients (20 defect sites in TS group and 22 in GBR group) were included in this study. With a 1‐ to 5‐year follow‐up, no implants failed, resulting in a 100% implant survival rate. After healing periods, the TS group demonstrated horizontal bone gains of 2.85 ± 1.42 mm, 3.37 ± 1.79 mm, and 3.27 ± 1.68 mm at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the implant shoulder, significantly exceeding the GBR group (p = 0.009, p = 0.002, p = 0.002, respectively). Consistently, three‐dimensional volumetric bone resorption rates for the TS and GBR groups after healing periods were 16.5% and 29.3% (p < 0.001), increasing to 36.7% and 50.7% after follow‐up periods (p < 0.001). The overall PPDs in the TS group were significantly smaller than those in the GBR group (2.50 (2.25, 2.50) mm vs. 2.50 (2.25, 2.75) mm, p = 0.038). No other significant differences were observed in terms of peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction.ConclusionsConsidering the superior bone augmentation outcomes and comparable peri‐implant soft tissue health, esthetics, and patient satisfaction to the conventional GBR technique, the tenting screw technique emerges as a reliable treatment option for reconstructing atrophic alveolar ridges in the anterior maxilla.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.