Aesthetic and radiographic outcomes using the root membrane technique in immediate adjacent implant placement: A retrospective clinical study with a 5- to 9-year follow-up.

Konstantinos D Siormpas, Bruno Leitão-Almeida, Tiago Borges, Georgios Kotsakis, Miltiadis E Mitsias
{"title":"Aesthetic and radiographic outcomes using the root membrane technique in immediate adjacent implant placement: A retrospective clinical study with a 5- to 9-year follow-up.","authors":"Konstantinos D Siormpas,&nbsp;Bruno Leitão-Almeida,&nbsp;Tiago Borges,&nbsp;Georgios Kotsakis,&nbsp;Miltiadis E Mitsias","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The root membrane technique was designed to preserve the buccal portion of the root in situ, preventing postextraction bundle bone loss and overlying soft tissue recession. Nevertheless, maintenance of the aesthetic gingival architecture around two or multiple adjacent implants, particularly in the anterior maxilla, remains a challenge, notably regarding the gingival contour and the interimplant papillae. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical, aesthetic and radiographic outcomes for immediate adjacent implants placed using the root membrane technique in the anterior maxilla in a sample with a 5- to 9-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective clinical study was designed using the medical records of two private dental practices. A total of 40 patients who were treated using the root membrane technique for at least two adjacent implants and single-crown restorations between January 2010 and February 2019 were selected (100 implants). The clinical and radiographic data were analysed to assess implant survival/success, marginal bone loss and the pink aesthetic score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cumulative survival rate after a mean follow-up period of 81.5 ± 30.5 months was 99.0% (implant-based) and 97.5% (patient-based), respectively. Between 1 and 5 years (n = 99), the mean marginal bone loss changed from 0.39 ± 0.07 mm to 0.36 ± 0.07 mm and subsequently to 0.37 ± 0.07 mm at the 7-year follow-up (n = 71) and 0.33 ± 0.07 mm at the 9-year follow-up (n = 14). The improvement from 1 year was significant at all the follow-up time points (P = 0.000). The mean global pink aesthetic score increased from baseline (11.33 ± 1.03) to 3 months after placement of the final restoration (11.73 ± 0.95) and the final observation (12.01 ± 0.87). This was a significant increase (P = 0.000 baseline to 3 months, 3 months to final observation and baseline to final observation).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this non-controlled retrospective study, adjacent implants placed using the root membrane technique achieved a satisfactory survival and success rate. The variation in marginal bone loss showed a significant positive trend from 1 year to 5 and 7 years. The overall pink aesthetic scores improved significantly between sequential observation periods.</p><p><strong>Conflict-of-interest statement: </strong>Dr Leitão-Almeida receives personal fees (for sponsored lectures) and non-financial support from MegaGen (Daegu, South Korea) outside of the submitted work; the other authors declare no conflicts of interests relating to this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":73463,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The root membrane technique was designed to preserve the buccal portion of the root in situ, preventing postextraction bundle bone loss and overlying soft tissue recession. Nevertheless, maintenance of the aesthetic gingival architecture around two or multiple adjacent implants, particularly in the anterior maxilla, remains a challenge, notably regarding the gingival contour and the interimplant papillae. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical, aesthetic and radiographic outcomes for immediate adjacent implants placed using the root membrane technique in the anterior maxilla in a sample with a 5- to 9-year follow-up.

Materials and methods: A retrospective clinical study was designed using the medical records of two private dental practices. A total of 40 patients who were treated using the root membrane technique for at least two adjacent implants and single-crown restorations between January 2010 and February 2019 were selected (100 implants). The clinical and radiographic data were analysed to assess implant survival/success, marginal bone loss and the pink aesthetic score.

Results: The cumulative survival rate after a mean follow-up period of 81.5 ± 30.5 months was 99.0% (implant-based) and 97.5% (patient-based), respectively. Between 1 and 5 years (n = 99), the mean marginal bone loss changed from 0.39 ± 0.07 mm to 0.36 ± 0.07 mm and subsequently to 0.37 ± 0.07 mm at the 7-year follow-up (n = 71) and 0.33 ± 0.07 mm at the 9-year follow-up (n = 14). The improvement from 1 year was significant at all the follow-up time points (P = 0.000). The mean global pink aesthetic score increased from baseline (11.33 ± 1.03) to 3 months after placement of the final restoration (11.73 ± 0.95) and the final observation (12.01 ± 0.87). This was a significant increase (P = 0.000 baseline to 3 months, 3 months to final observation and baseline to final observation).

Conclusions: In this non-controlled retrospective study, adjacent implants placed using the root membrane technique achieved a satisfactory survival and success rate. The variation in marginal bone loss showed a significant positive trend from 1 year to 5 and 7 years. The overall pink aesthetic scores improved significantly between sequential observation periods.

Conflict-of-interest statement: Dr Leitão-Almeida receives personal fees (for sponsored lectures) and non-financial support from MegaGen (Daegu, South Korea) outside of the submitted work; the other authors declare no conflicts of interests relating to this study.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
牙根膜技术用于临近种植体置入术的美学和影像学结果:一项5- 9年随访的回顾性临床研究。
目的:根膜技术的目的是保持根的颊部原位,防止拔牙后束骨丢失和覆盖的软组织萎缩。然而,维持两个或多个相邻种植体周围的美观牙龈结构,特别是在上颌前,仍然是一个挑战,特别是关于牙龈轮廓和种植间乳头。本研究旨在评估使用根膜技术在上颌前牙放置的临近种植体的临床、美学和影像学结果,并对样本进行了5至9年的随访。材料和方法:采用两家私人牙科诊所的医疗记录进行回顾性临床研究。选择2010年1月至2019年2月期间使用根膜技术进行至少两个相邻种植体和单冠修复的患者40例(100个种植体)。分析临床和放射学数据以评估种植体存活/成功、边缘骨丢失和粉红色美学评分。结果:平均随访81.5±30.5个月后的累积生存率为99.0%(基于种植体)和97.5%(基于患者)。1 ~ 5年期间(n = 99),平均边缘骨损失从0.39±0.07 mm变化到0.36±0.07 mm, 7年随访时(n = 71)为0.37±0.07 mm, 9年随访时(n = 14)为0.33±0.07 mm。从1年开始,所有随访时间点的改善都是显著的(P = 0.000)。平均整体粉红美学评分从基线(11.33±1.03)到最终修复体放置后3个月(11.73±0.95)和最终观察后(12.01±0.87)增加。这是一个显著的增加(P = 0.000基线至3个月,3个月至最终观察和基线至最终观察)。结论:在这项非对照的回顾性研究中,采用根膜技术放置邻近种植体获得了令人满意的成活率和成功率。从1年到5年和7年,边缘骨质流失的变化呈明显的上升趋势。在连续的观察期之间,整体的粉红色美学得分显著提高。利益冲突声明:leit o- almeida博士在提交的工作之外获得MegaGen(韩国大邱)的个人费用(赞助讲座)和非经济支持;其他作者声明与本研究没有利益冲突。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A 360-degree extraction socket classification for immediate dentoalveolar restoration. A randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of guided bone regeneration with polytetrafluoroethylene titanium-reinforced membranes, CAD/CAM semi-occlusive titanium meshes and CAD/CAM occlusive titanium foils in partially atrophic arches. Bone augmentation using titanium mesh: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical and histological efficacy of a new implant surface in achieving early and stable osseointegration: An in vivo study. Crown-to-implant ratio: A misnomer.
×
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