Abstract Background: The alveolar ridge undergoes reabsorption and atrophy subsequent to tooth removal, thus exhibits a wide range of dimensional changes. Preservation of the alveolar crest after tooth extraction is essential to enhance the surgical site prior to implant fixture placement. The aim of this randomized clinical study was to investigate and compare the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant insertion, as well as the success rate and marginal bone loss for implants placed in the grafted sites versus implants placed in naturally healed sites. Methods: Forty patients having at least one hopeless tooth were randomly allocated to a test group, receiving extraction and grafting corticocancellous porcine bone, and to a control group, receiving extraction without any graft. After 7 months of healing, implants were inserted in each of the sites included in this study. The implants were submerged and loaded after 4 months with metal-ceramic rehabilitation. The follow-up included evaluation of implant diameter and length, the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant placement, implant failure and marginal bone level changes. All patients were followed up to 3 years. Results: One implant failed in the control group at the second stage of surgery (6 months after placement); one implant failed in the test group after 2 years of loading. The cumulative implant success rate at the 3-year follow-up visit reached 95% for both groups. No statistically significant differences were detected for marginal bone changes between the 2 groups. Conclusion: It was concluded that implants placed into grafted extraction sockets exhibited a clinical performance similar to implants placed into non-grafted sites in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss. However, grafted sites allowed placement of larger implant and required less augmentation procedures at implant placement when compared to naturally healed sites.

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate and Compare Implants Placed in Augmented vs. Non-Augmented Extraction Sockets A 3-Year Evaluation.

BARONE, ANTONIO;MARCONCINI, SIMONE;COVANI, UGO
2012-01-01

Abstract

Abstract Background: The alveolar ridge undergoes reabsorption and atrophy subsequent to tooth removal, thus exhibits a wide range of dimensional changes. Preservation of the alveolar crest after tooth extraction is essential to enhance the surgical site prior to implant fixture placement. The aim of this randomized clinical study was to investigate and compare the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant insertion, as well as the success rate and marginal bone loss for implants placed in the grafted sites versus implants placed in naturally healed sites. Methods: Forty patients having at least one hopeless tooth were randomly allocated to a test group, receiving extraction and grafting corticocancellous porcine bone, and to a control group, receiving extraction without any graft. After 7 months of healing, implants were inserted in each of the sites included in this study. The implants were submerged and loaded after 4 months with metal-ceramic rehabilitation. The follow-up included evaluation of implant diameter and length, the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant placement, implant failure and marginal bone level changes. All patients were followed up to 3 years. Results: One implant failed in the control group at the second stage of surgery (6 months after placement); one implant failed in the test group after 2 years of loading. The cumulative implant success rate at the 3-year follow-up visit reached 95% for both groups. No statistically significant differences were detected for marginal bone changes between the 2 groups. Conclusion: It was concluded that implants placed into grafted extraction sockets exhibited a clinical performance similar to implants placed into non-grafted sites in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss. However, grafted sites allowed placement of larger implant and required less augmentation procedures at implant placement when compared to naturally healed sites.
2012
Barone, Antonio; Orlando, B; Cingano, L; Marconcini, Simone; Derchi, G; Covani, Ugo
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/159189
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 13
  • Scopus 67
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 69
social impact