Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13806

Título: Immediate implant placement in fresh alveolar sockets with a minimal split-thickness envelope flap: a randomised controlled clinical trial
Fecha de publicación: 4-jul-2021
Editorial: Wiley
Cita bibliográfica: Clinical Oral Implants Research Volume 32, Issue 9 1115-1126
ISSN: Print: 0905-7161
Electronic: 1600-0501
Palabras clave: Aesthetics
Bone
Cone-beam computed tomography
Dental implant
Immediate implant
PES
WES
Resumen: Objectives: comparing PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, success, buccal bone thickness and patient-reported outcomes of immediate dental implants placed in fresh alveolar sockets using a flap or a minimal split-thickness envelope flap (MSTEF). Materials and methods: Implants following random assignment into a flap or MSTEF group were placed immediately in anterior and premolar areas. Guided bone regeneration and autogenous connective tissue graft were used in all cases. A temporary prosthesis was provided followed by the final prosthesis at 16–18 weeks. Success and survival rates together with radiographic buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated at 12-month post-loading. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated through the Pink (PES) and White (WES) Aesthetic Score by 8 blind clinicians of different training background and incorporated in modified success criteria. Results: 28 implants were placed on 28 patients. No statistically significant differences were noted in PES (10.54 control versus 10.80 test), WES scores (6.97 control versus 6.95 test) or success criteria including aesthetic parameters (modified success criteria) for the different specialty groups (Range 69%-92%). In addition, no statistically significant differences were noted in survival (100%), success (100%), buccal wall thickness between control (0.72 ± 0.22) and test group (0.92 ± 0.31) and patients’ reported outcomes. Conclusions: Immediate dental implant treatment with flap/ MSTEF provided similar mean PES/WES scores, modified success rate, survival, mean buccal bone levels and patients’ satisfaction. However, aesthetic failures were common in both groups.
Autor/es principal/es: García-Sánchez, Rubén
Mardas, Nikos
Buti, Jacopo
Ortiz Ruiz, Antonio José
Pardo Zamora, Guillermo
Facultad/Departamentos/Servicios: Facultades, Departamentos, Servicios y Escuelas::Departamentos de la UMU::Dermatología, Estomatología, Radiología y Medicina Física
Versión del editor: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.13806
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10201/142463
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13806
Tipo de documento: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Número páginas / Extensión: 12
Derechos: info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
Descripción: © 2021 The Authors. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. This document is the Published version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in Clinical Oral Implants Research. To access the final edited and published work see https://doi.org/ 10.1111/clr.13806
Aparece en las colecciones:Artículos: Dermatología, Estomatología, Radiología y Medicina Física



Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons