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

Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DCValorLengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorGarcía-Sánchez, Rubén-
dc.contributor.authorMardas, Nikos-
dc.contributor.authorButi, Jacopo-
dc.contributor.authorOrtiz Ruiz, Antonio José-
dc.contributor.authorPardo Zamora, Guillermo-
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-19T12:10:33Z-
dc.date.available2024-06-19T12:10:33Z-
dc.date.issued2021-07-04-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research Volume 32, Issue 9 1115-1126es
dc.identifier.issnPrint: 0905-7161-
dc.identifier.issnElectronic: 1600-0501-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10201/142463-
dc.description© 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-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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.es
dc.formatapplication/pdfes
dc.format.extent12es
dc.languageenges
dc.publisherWileyes
dc.relationThe present study was partly supported by Avinent® that provided the dental implants used in this study and Osteógenos s.r.l.® that provided grafting materials and resorbable membranes used during this study.es
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectAestheticses
dc.subjectBonees
dc.subjectCone-beam computed tomographyes
dc.subjectDental implantes
dc.subjectImmediate implantes
dc.subjectPESes
dc.subjectWESes
dc.titleImmediate implant placement in fresh alveolar sockets with a minimal split-thickness envelope flap: a randomised controlled clinical triales
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.13806-
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13806-
dc.contributor.departmentDepartamento de Dermatología, Estomatología, Radiología y Medicina Física-
Aparece en las colecciones:Artículos



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