Karin Jepsen, Søren Jepsen, Christoph H. F. Hämmerle, Leonardo Mancini, Franz J. Strauss, Malin Strasdin, Stefan Hicklin, Mariano Sanz, Ignacio Sanz‐Martin, Daniel S. Thoma, Irena Sailer
Aim To assess 3‐year changes of peri‐implant tissues following previous soft tissue (volume) augmentation (STA) with a volume‐stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or connective tissue (SCTG) at single‐implant restorations. Material and Methods In a non‐interventional follow‐up observation, peri‐implant tissues were evaluated with regard to buccal mucosal thickness (MT) and contour, peri‐implant conditions: probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque (PI), mucosal margin level/crown height (CH), and clinician‐reported esthetics (PE and PES). Patient‐ and clinician‐reported satisfaction was recorded at 3 years (VAS). Mixed‐effects models were used to compare the groups. Results Fifty‐six patients (age: 48.0 ± 15.5 years) were followed. MT changes over time did not differ between groups [3.9 ± 1.4 mm to 2.6 ± 1.1 mm for VCMX; 3.8 ± 1.3 mm to 2.9 ± 1.2 mm for SCTG]. The estimated intergroup mean difference (VCMX–SCTG) was 0.2 mm ( p = 0.587). Mucosal recession was minimal in both groups [0.2 ± 1.0 mm (VCMX) and 0.2 ± 0.6 mm (SCTG)]. At 3 years, intergroup differences in PE scores amounted to 0.5 at mesial ( p = 0.06) and distal sites ( p = 0.023) in favor of SCTG. PES scores were high in both groups (VCMX = 10.8; SCTG = 10.9) with no significant differences between the groups ( p = 0.580). Patient‐reported satisfaction with overall esthetics was high (VAS: SCTG = 9.5; VCMX = 9.6) with no significant intergroup differences. Clinician‐reported satisfaction was significantly higher for SCTG (VAS: 8.5) compared with VCMX (VAS: 7.4; p = 0.04). Conclusion Both VCMX and SCTG maintained stable peri‐implant soft tissues with minimal contour changes 3 years after implant loading. Clinician‐reported outcome—esthetics overall—favored SCTG; however, patient‐reported outcomes did not support this finding.
目的评估在单种植体修复中使用体积稳定的胶原基质(VCMX)或结缔组织(SCTG)进行软组织(体积)增强(STA)后3年种植体周围组织的变化。材料和方法在非介入性随访观察中,对种植体周围组织进行评估,包括颊粘膜厚度(MT)和轮廓,种植体周围情况:探探深度(PD),探探出血(BOP),斑块(PI),粘膜边缘水平/冠高度(CH),以及临床医生报告的美学(PE和PES)。在3年(VAS)时记录患者和临床医生报告的满意度。混合效应模型用于组间比较。结果随访56例患者(年龄:48.0±15.5岁)。MT随时间的变化各组间无差异[VCMX组为3.9±1.4 mm至2.6±1.1 mm;SCTG为3.8±1.3 mm ~ 2.9±1.2 mm。估计组间平均差(VCMX-SCTG)为0.2 mm (p = 0.587)。两组患者的粘膜萎缩都很小[0.2±1.0 mm (VCMX)和0.2±0.6 mm (SCTG)]。3年时,组间PE评分在中端(p = 0.06)和远端(p = 0.023)处的差异为0.5,有利于SCTG。两组患者PES评分均较高(VCMX = 10.8; SCTG = 10.9),组间差异无统计学意义(p = 0.580)。患者报告的整体美学满意度较高(VAS: SCTG = 9.5; VCMX = 9.6),组间无显著差异。临床医生报告的满意度SCTG (VAS: 8.5)明显高于VCMX (VAS: 7.4; p = 0.04)。结论VCMX和SCTG均能在种植体加载3年后保持种植体周围软组织稳定,轮廓变化最小。临床医生报告的结果-美学总体上支持SCTG;然而,患者报告的结果并不支持这一发现。
{"title":"Changes in Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue Dimensions Following Soft Tissue Contour Augmentation: A 3‐Year Follow‐Up of a Multi‐Center RCT","authors":"Karin Jepsen, Søren Jepsen, Christoph H. F. Hämmerle, Leonardo Mancini, Franz J. Strauss, Malin Strasdin, Stefan Hicklin, Mariano Sanz, Ignacio Sanz‐Martin, Daniel S. Thoma, Irena Sailer","doi":"10.1111/clr.70078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70078","url":null,"abstract":"Aim To assess 3‐year changes of peri‐implant tissues following previous soft tissue (volume) augmentation (STA) with a volume‐stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or connective tissue (SCTG) at single‐implant restorations. Material and Methods In a non‐interventional follow‐up observation, peri‐implant tissues were evaluated with regard to buccal mucosal thickness (MT) and contour, peri‐implant conditions: probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque (PI), mucosal margin level/crown height (CH), and clinician‐reported esthetics (PE and PES). Patient‐ and clinician‐reported satisfaction was recorded at 3 years (VAS). Mixed‐effects models were used to compare the groups. Results Fifty‐six patients (age: 48.0 ± 15.5 years) were followed. MT changes over time did not differ between groups [3.9 ± 1.4 mm to 2.6 ± 1.1 mm for VCMX; 3.8 ± 1.3 mm to 2.9 ± 1.2 mm for SCTG]. The estimated intergroup mean difference (VCMX–SCTG) was 0.2 mm ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.587). Mucosal recession was minimal in both groups [0.2 ± 1.0 mm (VCMX) and 0.2 ± 0.6 mm (SCTG)]. At 3 years, intergroup differences in PE scores amounted to 0.5 at mesial ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.06) and distal sites ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.023) in favor of SCTG. PES scores were high in both groups (VCMX = 10.8; SCTG = 10.9) with no significant differences between the groups ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.580). Patient‐reported satisfaction with overall esthetics was high (VAS: SCTG = 9.5; VCMX = 9.6) with no significant intergroup differences. Clinician‐reported satisfaction was significantly higher for SCTG (VAS: 8.5) compared with VCMX (VAS: 7.4; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.04). Conclusion Both VCMX and SCTG maintained stable peri‐implant soft tissues with minimal contour changes 3 years after implant loading. Clinician‐reported outcome—esthetics overall—favored SCTG; however, patient‐reported outcomes did not support this finding.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"232 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145746668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ingvild Nysæther,Håvard Jostein Haugen,Thaqif El Khassawna,Reem Jamous,Shoresh Afnan,Marco Santacroce,Linda Z Arvidsson,Torben Hildebrand,S Petter Lyngstadaas,Jan Eirik Ellingsen
OBJECTIVESThis study evaluates the safety and osteoconductive potential of a ceramic TiO2 scaffold in human alveolar bone, hypothesising that placement in human extraction sockets is safe, supports bone ingrowth and preserves ridge dimensions.MATERIAL AND METHODSNine subjects requiring the extraction of ≥ 1 premolar or molar tooth were enrolled. Full-thickness mucoperiosteal flaps were elevated. Following tooth extraction, porous ceramic TiO2 scaffolds were adjusted chair-side, placed into the extraction socket and covered by a resorbable collagen membrane. After 6 months of healing, before dental implant placement, a biopsy was performed at the site where the scaffold had been placed. Histomorphometric and micro-CT analyses were made. CBCT images were made at baseline and at 6 months to assess alveolar ridge dimensional changes. Implants placed in regenerated bone were followed for 21 months.RESULTSScaffold customisation with chairside adjustment was straightforward. No serious adverse events were observed during the 6 months following scaffold implantation. One scaffold was removed due to an early exposure, while the remaining 9 scaffolds successfully integrated. Two sites presented with minor soft tissue dehiscences at 1-2 weeks, which healed spontaneously. Micro-CT and histology confirmed new bone formation. Soft tissue healing was favourable, with no adverse reactions. Dimensional analysis revealed minimal changes in alveolar ridge width and height, indicating effective preservation of volume.CONCLUSIONSThis clinical study confirms that TiO2 scaffolds are a safe and effective option for promoting bone regrowth and preserving volume in human alveolar bone, thereby facilitating bone formation and maintaining ridge dimensions post-extraction.TRIAL REGISTRATIONThis trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06269497) on 1 December 2022.
{"title":"Clinical Performance of Ultra-Porous TiO2 Scaffold as Bone Graft Substitute in Human Alveolar Ridge Preservation-A Feasibility Study.","authors":"Ingvild Nysæther,Håvard Jostein Haugen,Thaqif El Khassawna,Reem Jamous,Shoresh Afnan,Marco Santacroce,Linda Z Arvidsson,Torben Hildebrand,S Petter Lyngstadaas,Jan Eirik Ellingsen","doi":"10.1111/clr.70074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70074","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESThis study evaluates the safety and osteoconductive potential of a ceramic TiO2 scaffold in human alveolar bone, hypothesising that placement in human extraction sockets is safe, supports bone ingrowth and preserves ridge dimensions.MATERIAL AND METHODSNine subjects requiring the extraction of ≥ 1 premolar or molar tooth were enrolled. Full-thickness mucoperiosteal flaps were elevated. Following tooth extraction, porous ceramic TiO2 scaffolds were adjusted chair-side, placed into the extraction socket and covered by a resorbable collagen membrane. After 6 months of healing, before dental implant placement, a biopsy was performed at the site where the scaffold had been placed. Histomorphometric and micro-CT analyses were made. CBCT images were made at baseline and at 6 months to assess alveolar ridge dimensional changes. Implants placed in regenerated bone were followed for 21 months.RESULTSScaffold customisation with chairside adjustment was straightforward. No serious adverse events were observed during the 6 months following scaffold implantation. One scaffold was removed due to an early exposure, while the remaining 9 scaffolds successfully integrated. Two sites presented with minor soft tissue dehiscences at 1-2 weeks, which healed spontaneously. Micro-CT and histology confirmed new bone formation. Soft tissue healing was favourable, with no adverse reactions. Dimensional analysis revealed minimal changes in alveolar ridge width and height, indicating effective preservation of volume.CONCLUSIONSThis clinical study confirms that TiO2 scaffolds are a safe and effective option for promoting bone regrowth and preserving volume in human alveolar bone, thereby facilitating bone formation and maintaining ridge dimensions post-extraction.TRIAL REGISTRATIONThis trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06269497) on 1 December 2022.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145645019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cristina Porta‐Ferrer, Basel Elnayef‐Elsakan, Fernando Suárez‐López del Amo, Jordi Caballé‐Serrano, Marta Satorres‐Nieto, Federico Hernández‐Alfaro
Objectives The objective of this RCT was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes after immediate implant placement and temporization of two neck geometries: a traditional round neck (RN) and an innovative triangular neck (TN). Materials and Methods Thirty‐six patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to TN (test) or RN (control) groups for an immediate implant placement and provisionalization protocol in the anterior maxilla. Buccal bone width (BBW) was assessed by cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) immediately after implant placement and 4 months later, when the definitive crown was placed. The following parameters were measured on the day of surgery: insertion torque (IT), implant stability quotient (ISQ), crestal width (CW), and soft tissue thickness (STT) at 3 and 5 mm from the gingival margin. Postoperatively, at 4 and 12 months, the MBL, pocket depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), CW, and STT at 3 and 5 mm were recorded. Results Two implants per group failed to integrate; in both groups, 1 year implant survival and success rates were 88.9%. At 4 months, BBW was not significantly different between groups ( p > 0.05). At 12 months, no significant differences were found in MBL, PD, BOP, CW, or STT ( p > 0.05). Conclusions This randomized trial did not demonstrate superiority of the triangular neck over the round neck at 12 months. Estimates and confidence intervals are compatible with small between‐group differences. As the study was not designed or powered for equivalence, no equivalence claims are made. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05944419
本RCT的目的是比较两种颈部几何形状(传统的圆颈(RN)和创新的三角形颈(TN))即刻植入和延期后的临床和影像学结果。材料和方法36例患者被随机分为TN组(试验组)和RN组(对照组),接受上颌前牙即刻种植和预备方案。种植体放置后立即和4个月后放置最终冠时,通过锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)评估颊骨宽度(BBW)。在手术当天测量以下参数:插入扭矩(IT)、种植体稳定商(ISQ)、牙冠宽度(CW)和距龈缘3和5 mm处的软组织厚度(STT)。术后4个月和12个月分别记录MBL、口袋深度(PD)、探查出血(BOP)、连续波(CW)和3、5 mm STT。结果每组2枚种植体整合失败;两组1年种植体成活率和成功率均为88.9%。4个月时,两组间BBW差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。12个月时,MBL、PD、BOP、CW或STT无显著差异(p > 0.05)。结论:在12个月时,该随机试验并未证明三角形颈部优于圆形颈部。估计和置信区间与组间的小差异是一致的。由于该研究的设计或动力不是等效的,因此没有提出等效声明。试验注册ClinicalTrials.gov识别码:NCT05944419
{"title":"Influence of Neck Design on Peri‐Implant Hard and Soft Tissues: A 12‐Month Randomized Clinical Trial of Immediately Placed Implants","authors":"Cristina Porta‐Ferrer, Basel Elnayef‐Elsakan, Fernando Suárez‐López del Amo, Jordi Caballé‐Serrano, Marta Satorres‐Nieto, Federico Hernández‐Alfaro","doi":"10.1111/clr.70068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70068","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives The objective of this RCT was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes after immediate implant placement and temporization of two neck geometries: a traditional round neck (RN) and an innovative triangular neck (TN). Materials and Methods Thirty‐six patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to TN (test) or RN (control) groups for an immediate implant placement and provisionalization protocol in the anterior maxilla. Buccal bone width (BBW) was assessed by cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) immediately after implant placement and 4 months later, when the definitive crown was placed. The following parameters were measured on the day of surgery: insertion torque (IT), implant stability quotient (ISQ), crestal width (CW), and soft tissue thickness (STT) at 3 and 5 mm from the gingival margin. Postoperatively, at 4 and 12 months, the MBL, pocket depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), CW, and STT at 3 and 5 mm were recorded. Results Two implants per group failed to integrate; in both groups, 1 year implant survival and success rates were 88.9%. At 4 months, BBW was not significantly different between groups ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> > 0.05). At 12 months, no significant differences were found in MBL, PD, BOP, CW, or STT ( <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> > 0.05). Conclusions This randomized trial did not demonstrate superiority of the triangular neck over the round neck at 12 months. Estimates and confidence intervals are compatible with small between‐group differences. As the study was not designed or powered for equivalence, no equivalence claims are made. Trial Registration <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" xlink:href=\"http://clinicaltrials.gov\">ClinicalTrials.gov</jats:ext-link> identifier: NCT05944419","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"113 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145583118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}