Immediate Implant Placement in Intact Fresh Extraction Sockets Using Vestibular Socket Therapy Versus Partial Extraction Therapy in the Esthetic Zone: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.11607/jomi.9973
Abdelsalam Elaskary, Hams Abdelrahman, Basem Elfahl, Hossam Elsabagh, Gillan El-Kimary, Noha Ayman Ghallab
{"title":"Immediate Implant Placement in Intact Fresh Extraction Sockets Using Vestibular Socket Therapy Versus Partial Extraction Therapy in the Esthetic Zone: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Abdelsalam Elaskary,&nbsp;Hams Abdelrahman,&nbsp;Basem Elfahl,&nbsp;Hossam Elsabagh,&nbsp;Gillan El-Kimary,&nbsp;Noha Ayman Ghallab","doi":"10.11607/jomi.9973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess esthetic and soft and hard tissue outcomes 6 months after immediate implant placement using vestibular socket therapy (VST) (test) versus partial extraction therapy (comparator) in intact thin-walled fresh extraction sockets in the esthetic zone.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-four patients with hopeless maxillary anterior teeth requiring immediate implant placement were randomly assigned to two equal groups to receive either VST or partial extraction therapy. Definitive restorations were delivered after 3 months. Pink esthetic scores (PESs) and vertical soft tissue alterations in millimeters were measured 6 months after restoration using intraoral digital scans of the distal papilla, midfacial gingival margin, and mesial papilla. Facial bone thickness was measured using CBCT scans at baseline and after 6 months. Implant survival and peri-implant pocket depth were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups showed 100% implant survival after 6 months. The overall PESs after 6 months were 12.67 (± 1.3) in the VST group, while the partial extraction therapy group score was 13.17 (± 1.19), with no significant difference between them (<i>P</i> = .02). The mean (± SD) vertical soft tissue measurements for the VST group were 0.08 (± 0.55), 0.01 (± 0.73), and -0.03 (± 0.52) mm, and for the partial extraction therapy group, they were -0.24 (± 0.25) mm, -0.20 (± 0.10) mm, and -0.34 (± 0.13) mm for the mesial papilla, midfacial gingival margin, and distal papilla, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the groups at any of the reference points (<i>P</i> ± .05). Both techniques demonstrated a significant gain in millimeters of labial bone thickness after 6 months compared to baseline (P ± .05). Regarding VST, the apical, middle, and crestal mean bone gain was 1.68 (±± 2.73), 1.62 (±± 1.35), and 1.33 (±± 1.22) mm, respectively, while partial extraction therapy showed 0.58 (± 0.62), 1.27 (± 1.22), and 1.53 (± 1.24) mm, respectively, with no significant difference detected between them (<i>P</i> ≥ .05). Additionally, the mean (± SD) peri-implant pocket depth after 6 months for VST was 2.16 (± 0.44) and 2.08 (± 1.02) mm for partial extraction therapy with no significant difference between them (<i>P</i> = .79).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This investigation suggests that both VST and partial extraction therapy preserved alveolar bone structure and peri-implant tissues following immediate implants. The novel VST might be considered a predictable alternative treatment approach for immediate implant placement in intact thin-walled fresh extraction sockets in the esthetic zone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2023;38:468-478. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9973.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"38 3","pages":"468-478"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9973","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess esthetic and soft and hard tissue outcomes 6 months after immediate implant placement using vestibular socket therapy (VST) (test) versus partial extraction therapy (comparator) in intact thin-walled fresh extraction sockets in the esthetic zone.

Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients with hopeless maxillary anterior teeth requiring immediate implant placement were randomly assigned to two equal groups to receive either VST or partial extraction therapy. Definitive restorations were delivered after 3 months. Pink esthetic scores (PESs) and vertical soft tissue alterations in millimeters were measured 6 months after restoration using intraoral digital scans of the distal papilla, midfacial gingival margin, and mesial papilla. Facial bone thickness was measured using CBCT scans at baseline and after 6 months. Implant survival and peri-implant pocket depth were assessed.

Results: Both groups showed 100% implant survival after 6 months. The overall PESs after 6 months were 12.67 (± 1.3) in the VST group, while the partial extraction therapy group score was 13.17 (± 1.19), with no significant difference between them (P = .02). The mean (± SD) vertical soft tissue measurements for the VST group were 0.08 (± 0.55), 0.01 (± 0.73), and -0.03 (± 0.52) mm, and for the partial extraction therapy group, they were -0.24 (± 0.25) mm, -0.20 (± 0.10) mm, and -0.34 (± 0.13) mm for the mesial papilla, midfacial gingival margin, and distal papilla, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the groups at any of the reference points (P ± .05). Both techniques demonstrated a significant gain in millimeters of labial bone thickness after 6 months compared to baseline (P ± .05). Regarding VST, the apical, middle, and crestal mean bone gain was 1.68 (±± 2.73), 1.62 (±± 1.35), and 1.33 (±± 1.22) mm, respectively, while partial extraction therapy showed 0.58 (± 0.62), 1.27 (± 1.22), and 1.53 (± 1.24) mm, respectively, with no significant difference detected between them (P ≥ .05). Additionally, the mean (± SD) peri-implant pocket depth after 6 months for VST was 2.16 (± 0.44) and 2.08 (± 1.02) mm for partial extraction therapy with no significant difference between them (P = .79).

Conclusion: This investigation suggests that both VST and partial extraction therapy preserved alveolar bone structure and peri-implant tissues following immediate implants. The novel VST might be considered a predictable alternative treatment approach for immediate implant placement in intact thin-walled fresh extraction sockets in the esthetic zone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2023;38:468-478. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9973.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在完整的新鲜拔牙槽中使用前庭窝疗法与在审美区部分拔牙疗法进行即刻种植:一项随机临床试验。
目的:本随机临床试验旨在评估在美观区使用前庭窝治疗(试验)与部分拔牙治疗(比较)在完整的薄壁新鲜拔牙窝中立即放置种植体6个月后的美学和软硬组织结果。材料与方法:将24例需要立即种植的上颌前牙患者随机分为两组,分别接受VST和部分拔除治疗。3个月后完成最终修复。修复后6个月,使用口腔内数字扫描测量远端乳头、面中龈缘和近中乳头的粉红色美学评分(PESs)和垂直软组织改变(毫米)。在基线和6个月后使用CBCT扫描测量面部骨厚度。评估种植体存活和种植体周围口袋深度。结果:两组6个月后种植体成活率均为100%。VST组6个月后总PESs为12.67(±1.3)分,部分拔牙组6个月后总PESs为13.17(±1.19)分,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P = 0.02)。VST组的软组织垂直测量平均值(±SD)分别为0.08(±0.55)、0.01(±0.73)和-0.03(±0.52)mm,部分拔牙组的近中乳头、面中龈缘和远端乳头垂直测量平均值分别为-0.24(±0.25)mm、-0.20(±0.10)mm和-0.34(±0.13)mm。在任何参考点上,两组间均无显著差异(P±0.05)。与基线相比,这两种技术均显示6个月后唇骨厚度毫米显著增加(P±0.05)。VST的根尖、中、嵴平均骨增重分别为1.68(±±2.73)、1.62(±±1.35)、1.33(±±1.22)mm,部分拔牙治疗的骨增重分别为0.58(±0.62)、1.27(±1.22)、1.53(±1.24)mm,两者差异无统计学意义(P≥0.05)。此外,VST组6个月后种植体周围口袋深度平均值(±SD)为2.16(±0.44)mm,部分拔牙组为2.08(±1.02)mm,两者差异无统计学意义(P = 0.79)。结论:本研究提示VST和部分拔牙治疗均可保护即刻种植后的牙槽骨结构和种植体周围组织。这种新型的VST可以被认为是一种可预测的替代治疗方法,用于在美观区完整的薄壁新鲜拔牙槽中立即植入种植体。口腔颌面种植[J]; 2009;38(3):468-478。doi: 10.11607 / jomi.9973。
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS ISSN (Print): 0882-2786 ISSN (Online): 1942-4434 This highly regarded, often-cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy. It presents pioneering research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, seminal studies, emerging technology, position papers, and consensus studies, as well as the many clinical and therapeutic innovations that ensue as a result of these efforts. The editorial board is composed of recognized opinion leaders in their respective areas of expertise and reflects the international reach of the journal. Under their leadership, JOMI maintains its strong scientific integrity while expanding its influence within the field of implant dentistry. JOMI’s popular regular feature "Thematic Abstract Review" presents a review of abstracts of recently published articles on a specific topical area of interest each issue.
期刊最新文献
Peri-implant Parameters of Dental Implants Inserted in Prefabricated Microvascular Fibular Flaps: A Retrospective Study. Different Surgical Techniques in the All-on-4 Treatment Concept: Evaluation of the Stress Distribution Created in Implant and Peripheral Bone with Finite Element Analysis. Augmentation of Peri-implant Keratinized Mucosa Using a Combination of Free Gingival Graft Strip with Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix or Free Gingival Graft Alone: A Randomized Controlled Study. Efficacy of Labial Split-Thickness Eversion Periosteoplasty for Soft Tissue Management in Posterior Mandibular Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Procedures: A Prospective Clinical Study. Porcine Resorbable Collagen Matrix Shows Good Incorporation of Liquid Platelet-Rich Fibrin In Vitro.
×
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