Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To compare radiographic and profilometric outcomes 6&#xa0;months after simultaneous lateral guided bone regeneration (GBR) at single peri-implant dehiscence defects in the anterior region using either resorbable or non-resorbable membranes.</p> Materials and methods <p>In 27 patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior region (second premolar to second premolar in the maxilla) a dental implant was placed. Following implant placement GBR was performed at the buccal aspect using randomly either a resorbable collagen membrane (RES) or a non-resorbable titanium-reinforced ePTFE membrane (N-RES). Radiographic (cone-beam computed tomography; CBCT) measurements were performed to assess the buccal bone thickness immediately after the implant placement with simultaneous GBR (baseline) and 6&#xa0;months later. Buccal soft tissue thickness was assessed by superimposing surface scans taken at baseline and again 6&#xa0;months later.</p> Results <p>A total of 25 datasets could be assessed for the bone dimensions (<i>n</i> = 12, RES; <i>n</i> = 13, N-RES) and 14 datasets for profilometric changes (<i>n</i> = 7, RES; <i>n</i> = 7, N-RES). Group RES showed a significant mean reduction in buccal bone between baseline and 6&#xa0;months of 0.8 ± 0.4&#xa0;mm (<i>p</i> = 0.004). The respective mean reduction for group N-RES amounted to 0.1 ± 0.4&#xa0;mm (<i>p</i> = 0.581). When comparing the buccal bone changes between both group over time, group RES exhibited greater reduction in comparison to group N-RES (intergroup <i>p</i> = 0.017). Profilometric analyses showed a non-significant trend towards soft tissue gain in group RES 0.6 ± 0.7&#xa0;mm (<i>p</i> = 0.125). Conversely, N-RES group revealed stability, with a mean change of 0.0 ± 0.3&#xa0;mm (<i>p</i> = 1.000).</p> Conclusions <p>GBR using non-resorbable membranes seems to provide greater dimensional stability of augmented bone at 6&#xa0;months re-entry and before implant loading compared to resorbable membranes. The lack of differences in the profilometric outcomes and contour changes may be explained by a partial compensation through an increase in soft tissue thickness with resorbable membranes.</p> Clinical relevance <p>GBR using non-resorbable membranes may offer greater dimensional stability of augmented bone compared to resorbable membranes. However, these potential benefits may be offset by a compensatory increase in soft tissue thickness when using resorbable membranes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Hard and soft tissue contour changes following simultaneous guided bone regeneration at single peri-implant dehiscence defects using either resorbable or non-resorbable membranes: a 6-month secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月8日

查看全文
  • Franz J. Strauss,
  • David Schneider,
  • Ronald E. Jung,
  • Riccardo Kraus,
  • Daniel S. Thoma,
  • Nadja Naenni

摘要

Objectives

To compare radiographic and profilometric outcomes 6 months after simultaneous lateral guided bone regeneration (GBR) at single peri-implant dehiscence defects in the anterior region using either resorbable or non-resorbable membranes.

Materials and methods

In 27 patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior region (second premolar to second premolar in the maxilla) a dental implant was placed. Following implant placement GBR was performed at the buccal aspect using randomly either a resorbable collagen membrane (RES) or a non-resorbable titanium-reinforced ePTFE membrane (N-RES). Radiographic (cone-beam computed tomography; CBCT) measurements were performed to assess the buccal bone thickness immediately after the implant placement with simultaneous GBR (baseline) and 6 months later. Buccal soft tissue thickness was assessed by superimposing surface scans taken at baseline and again 6 months later.

Results

A total of 25 datasets could be assessed for the bone dimensions (n = 12, RES; n = 13, N-RES) and 14 datasets for profilometric changes (n = 7, RES; n = 7, N-RES). Group RES showed a significant mean reduction in buccal bone between baseline and 6 months of 0.8 ± 0.4 mm (p = 0.004). The respective mean reduction for group N-RES amounted to 0.1 ± 0.4 mm (p = 0.581). When comparing the buccal bone changes between both group over time, group RES exhibited greater reduction in comparison to group N-RES (intergroup p = 0.017). Profilometric analyses showed a non-significant trend towards soft tissue gain in group RES 0.6 ± 0.7 mm (p = 0.125). Conversely, N-RES group revealed stability, with a mean change of 0.0 ± 0.3 mm (p = 1.000).

Conclusions

GBR using non-resorbable membranes seems to provide greater dimensional stability of augmented bone at 6 months re-entry and before implant loading compared to resorbable membranes. The lack of differences in the profilometric outcomes and contour changes may be explained by a partial compensation through an increase in soft tissue thickness with resorbable membranes.

Clinical relevance

GBR using non-resorbable membranes may offer greater dimensional stability of augmented bone compared to resorbable membranes. However, these potential benefits may be offset by a compensatory increase in soft tissue thickness when using resorbable membranes.