The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of preloading crestal bone loss (PLCBL) and to identify the patient-related and implant-related factors associated with PLCBL.
This retrospective cohort examined the dental records of patients who received at least one dental implant. PLCBL was defined as a reduction ⩾0.5 mm and severe PLCBL (primary variable) as a reduction ⩾1.5 mm in mesial and/or distal bone level, measured from the day of implant placement to uncovering or abutment installation/crown delivery. The incidence of PLCBL and patient and implant variables were recorded. Bivariate analysis and binary logistic regression identified factors associated with PLCBL ⩾0.5 mm and ⩾1.5 mm.
A total of 746 dental implants placed in 361 patients from January 2011 to July 2021 was included in the analyses. Of the implants assessed, 24.4% (n = 182) exhibited PLCBL ⩾ 0.5 mm and 10.5% (n = 78) presented severe PLCBL (i.e., ⩾1.5 mm). Males (odds ratio [OR] = 1.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11–3.07), patients with diabetes (OR = 3.33, 95% CI = 1.73–6.42), and those allergic to penicillin (OR = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.57–6.22) were more likely to experience severe PLCBL (p < 0.05). Implants placed in the anterior area (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.16–3.73), with bone-level platform-abutment connection (OR = 4.73, 95% CI = 1.94–11.49) and inserted supracrestally (OR = 3.77, 95% CI = 1.84–7.72), presented a greater risk of developing severe PLCBL (p < 0.05). Implants placed in a previously grafted area presented a lower likelihood of developing severe PLCBL (OR = 0.489, 95% CI = 0.28–0.84).
The incidence of PLCBL ⩾ 0.5 mm and ⩾1.5 mm was 24.4% and 10.5%, respectively. Male sex, diabetes, allergy to penicillin, anterior location, bone-level platform-abutment connection, and supracrestal implant placement are potential risk factors for severe PLCBL. A previously grafted area is a potential protective factor.
The primary purpose of this two-arm, parallel design, randomized controlled study is to compare healing of the palatal tissue donor site when platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is used as a wound dressing compared to the use of a hemostatic agent. Secondary outcomes of patient pain perception and analgesic intake were also evaluated.
Seventy-four patients receiving free gingival grafts were randomized to receive either PRF (test) or hemostatic agent (control) as a palatal wound dressing by patients selecting a sealed envelope containing their group assignment (initially 37 envelopes for PRF group and 37 for hemostatic agent group). Patient pain assessment and analgesic consumption were documented using a 21-point numerical scale (NMRS-21) at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-surgery. At 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week follow-up appointments palatal early healing index (PEHI) scores including wound color, epithelialization, presence or absence of swelling, granulation tissue, and bleeding on gentle palpation were generated by direct intraoral examination by a blinded examiner unaware of the patients’ treatment group.
NMRS-21 pain scores showed a significant reduction in pain over time in both groups, with no significant difference between groups at any time point. No significant between-group difference was found in the amount of analgesics taken by patients at 24, 48, and 72 hours. There was significant improvement in PEHI scores over the 4-week time period in both groups, but there was no significant difference in PEHI score at each time point (1, 2, 3, 4 weeks) between groups.
Study findings suggest that there is no difference in early palatal wound healing, patient pain perception, or analgesic consumption between use of PRF or a hemostatic agent as donor-site wound dressings.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：