Michele Mario Figliuzzi, Amerigo Giudice, Maria Giulia Cristofaro, Delfina Pacifico, Pasquale Biamonte, Leonzio Fortunato
{"title":"Postextractive implants in aesthetic areas: evaluation of perimplant bone remodeling over time.","authors":"Michele Mario Figliuzzi, Amerigo Giudice, Maria Giulia Cristofaro, Delfina Pacifico, Pasquale Biamonte, Leonzio Fortunato","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this research was to assess peri-implant bone remodeling of post-extractive implants over 2 years.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>30 patients meeting pre-established inclusion criteria were enrolled for the study. One implant for each patient was inserted in the post-extraction sockets according to a defined surgical protocol (atramautic extraction, curettage of extraction socket, implant insertion, grafting with collagenated cortico-cancellous porcine bone, and a trimmed collagen membrane to completely cover the socket, suture). A temporary adhesive bridge, with an adequate profile, was bonded to the adjacent teeth. X-ray evaluation with a standardized stent was carried out at different times. Measurements were obtained from the implant edge to the bone peak. The values obtained at time 0 and at 2 years were compared by t-student test.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Our results showed that after one year 73% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 20% of patient had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 7% of patient had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm of bone reabsorption. After two years 62% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 24% had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 14% had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results showed no significant differences in bone reabsorption in most patients over 2 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":78041,"journal":{"name":"Annali di stomatologia","volume":"6 1","pages":"29-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4475908/pdf/29-34.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali di stomatologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this research was to assess peri-implant bone remodeling of post-extractive implants over 2 years.
Material and methods: 30 patients meeting pre-established inclusion criteria were enrolled for the study. One implant for each patient was inserted in the post-extraction sockets according to a defined surgical protocol (atramautic extraction, curettage of extraction socket, implant insertion, grafting with collagenated cortico-cancellous porcine bone, and a trimmed collagen membrane to completely cover the socket, suture). A temporary adhesive bridge, with an adequate profile, was bonded to the adjacent teeth. X-ray evaluation with a standardized stent was carried out at different times. Measurements were obtained from the implant edge to the bone peak. The values obtained at time 0 and at 2 years were compared by t-student test.
Result: Our results showed that after one year 73% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 20% of patient had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 7% of patient had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm of bone reabsorption. After two years 62% of patient had 0 mm of bone reabsorption, 24% had 0 mm ≤ x ≤ 0.5mm, 14% had 0.5 mm ≤ x ≤ 2 mm.
Conclusions: The results showed no significant differences in bone reabsorption in most patients over 2 years.
目的:本研究的目的是评估种植体周围骨重塑后拔牙种植体超过2年。材料和方法:30例符合预先建立的纳入标准的患者入组研究。根据确定的手术方案(无创伤拔牙、拔牙窝刮除、植入种植体、皮质松质猪骨移植、修剪后的胶原膜完全覆盖牙窝、缝合),将每位患者的一颗种植体植入拔牙后的牙窝。一个临时的粘接剂桥,有足够的轮廓,与邻近的牙齿粘接。采用标准化支架在不同时间进行x线评估。测量从种植体边缘到骨峰。用t-student检验比较0年和2年的数据。结果:1年后73%的患者骨重吸收为0 mm, 20%的患者骨重吸收为0 mm≤x≤0.5mm, 7%的患者骨重吸收为0.5mm≤x≤2mm。2年后,62%的患者骨重吸收为0 mm, 24%的患者骨重吸收为0 mm≤x≤0.5mm, 14%的患者骨重吸收为0.5mm≤x≤2mm。结论:2年后大多数患者骨重吸收无显著差异。