Comparison of maxillary tuberosity and palatal donor sites for soft tissue augmentation at implant placement: A pilot controlled clinical study.

Elli Anna Kotsailidi, Dimitris N Tatakis, Yo-Wei Chen, Jack G Caton, Carlo Ercoli, Abdul Basir Barmak, Alexandra Tsigarida
{"title":"Comparison of maxillary tuberosity and palatal donor sites for soft tissue augmentation at implant placement: A pilot controlled clinical study.","authors":"Elli Anna Kotsailidi,&nbsp;Dimitris N Tatakis,&nbsp;Yo-Wei Chen,&nbsp;Jack G Caton,&nbsp;Carlo Ercoli,&nbsp;Abdul Basir Barmak,&nbsp;Alexandra Tsigarida","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the outcomes of soft tissue augmentation during one-stage implant placement using grafts harvested from the hard palate or the maxillary tuberosity.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this pilot controlled clinical study, non-smoking adults with a single missing tooth in the anterior or premolar region and adequate ridge dimensions for implant placement were enrolled. Each received a single implant and connective tissue graft harvested either from the hard palate (n = 10) or the maxillary tuberosity (n = 10). Digital impressions were taken prior to treatment (T0) and then 2 and 12 months postoperatively (T1 and T2, respectively). The primary study outcome was changes in horizontal ridge dimension. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone level changes over time, pain levels in the first 2 postoperative weeks (W1 and W2) and pink aesthetic score and patient-reported outcome measures at T2. Data analysis included repeated measures analysis of variance for intergroup comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The horizontal ridge dimension increased significantly in both groups (P ≤ 0.002) at all apico-coronal levels examined, with no significant intergroup differences. There was also no significant intergroup difference in marginal bone level changes (P = 0.376). The hard palate group experienced higher pain levels in the donor site compared to the tuberosity group at W1 (P = 0.023). The pink aesthetic score and patient-reported outcome measures were similar between groups at T2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Soft tissue augmentation during one-stage implant placement results in significant increases in the horizontal ridge dimension.</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: To compare the outcomes of soft tissue augmentation during one-stage implant placement using grafts harvested from the hard palate or the maxillary tuberosity.

Materials and methods: In this pilot controlled clinical study, non-smoking adults with a single missing tooth in the anterior or premolar region and adequate ridge dimensions for implant placement were enrolled. Each received a single implant and connective tissue graft harvested either from the hard palate (n = 10) or the maxillary tuberosity (n = 10). Digital impressions were taken prior to treatment (T0) and then 2 and 12 months postoperatively (T1 and T2, respectively). The primary study outcome was changes in horizontal ridge dimension. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone level changes over time, pain levels in the first 2 postoperative weeks (W1 and W2) and pink aesthetic score and patient-reported outcome measures at T2. Data analysis included repeated measures analysis of variance for intergroup comparisons.

Results: The horizontal ridge dimension increased significantly in both groups (P ≤ 0.002) at all apico-coronal levels examined, with no significant intergroup differences. There was also no significant intergroup difference in marginal bone level changes (P = 0.376). The hard palate group experienced higher pain levels in the donor site compared to the tuberosity group at W1 (P = 0.023). The pink aesthetic score and patient-reported outcome measures were similar between groups at T2.

Conclusions: Soft tissue augmentation during one-stage implant placement results in significant increases in the horizontal ridge dimension.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
上颌结节和腭供体在种植体植入时软组织增强的比较:一项试点对照临床研究。
目的:比较硬腭和上颌结节移植一期种植体的软组织增强效果。材料和方法:在这项试点对照临床研究中,纳入了在前磨牙区或前磨牙区缺一颗牙齿且有足够的牙脊尺寸的非吸烟成年人。每位患者均接受单一种植体和结缔组织移植物,分别取自硬腭(n = 10)或上颌结节(n = 10)。在治疗前(T0)和术后2个月和12个月(分别为T1和T2)进行数字印模。主要研究结果是水平脊尺寸的变化。次要结果包括骨边缘水平随时间的变化,术后前2周(W1和W2)的疼痛水平,T2时的粉红色美学评分和患者报告的结果测量。资料分析包括组间比较的重复测量方差分析。结果:两组在根尖冠状位水平的水平脊尺寸均显著增加(P≤0.002),组间差异无统计学意义。两组间边缘骨水平变化差异无统计学意义(P = 0.376)。在W1时,硬腭组供区疼痛程度高于结节组(P = 0.023)。T2时,两组间的粉红色美学评分和患者报告的结果指标相似。结论:一期种植体植入过程中软组织增强可显著增加水平嵴尺寸。
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