Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular and Critical Area Pathology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Department of Dentistry, Tuscan Stomatologic Institute, Lido di Camaiore, Italy.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018 Dec;20(6):906-914. doi: 10.1111/cid.12682. Epub 2018 Oct 11.
Consistent bone changes occur after tooth removal, often compromising the success of implants placed within the socket left to natural healing The long-term effect of ridge preservation on implant outcomes is still unclear.
The aim of the study was to assess success and survival rates of implants placed in extraction sockets, with spontaneous healing, or grafted with cortical porcine bone, or collagenated corticocancellous porcine bone.
Ninety patients in need for a single premolar/molar tooth extraction and an implant treatment were selected for the present study. Patients were randomly distributed among 3 groups: sites that healed naturally (ctrl), or sites that received ridge preservation with either cortical (cort) or collagenated corticocancellous porcine bone (coll). Three months after, all the experimental sites were reentered to insert implants. Marginal bone levels were recorded; soft tissues were analyzed and summarized with the Pink Esthetic Score (PES). Forty-two patients out of 90 (initial cohort study) completed the entire follow-up of 4 years.
Cumulative survival and success rates for all implants were 100% at a 4-year evaluation. Mean marginal bone loss (MBL) was 1.14 ± 0.23 mm in the cort group, 1.13 ± 0.29 mm in the coll group, and 1.92 ± 0.07 mm in the ctrl group. There were no significant differences between the 2 grafting materials but MBL was significantly greater in the nongrafted sites (P value < .001). The PES resulted significantly better (9.42 ± 0.75) for the cort group than for the coll group (8.53 ± 1.18) and ctrl group (6.07 ± 1.89) at 4-year evaluation.
Ridge preservation was more effective than natural healing in preserving marginal bone and in achieving better esthetic outcomes around implants 4 years after placement. The cortical porcine bone showed better clinical outcomes than collagenated corticocancellous porcine bone.
牙齿拔除后会出现一致的骨变化,这通常会影响植入物在自然愈合的牙槽窝中的成功率。关于牙槽嵴保存对种植体结局的长期影响仍不清楚。
本研究旨在评估在自然愈合(对照组)、皮质猪骨(皮质组)或胶原化皮质松质猪骨(胶原组)保存牙槽嵴的拔牙窝中植入种植体的成功率和存活率。
本研究共纳入 90 名需要单颗前磨牙/磨牙拔牙和种植治疗的患者。患者随机分为 3 组:对照组(n=30),牙槽窝自然愈合;皮质组(n=30),牙槽窝行皮质骨保存;胶原组(n=30),牙槽窝行胶原化皮质松质骨保存。拔牙后 3 个月,所有实验组均重新植入种植体。记录边缘骨吸收量,采用 Pink 美学评分(PES)分析软组织情况。90 名患者中有 42 名(初始队列研究)完成了 4 年的完整随访。
所有种植体在 4 年评估时的累积存活率和成功率均为 100%。皮质组的平均边缘骨吸收量(MBL)为 1.14±0.23mm,胶原组为 1.13±0.29mm,对照组为 1.92±0.07mm。两种植骨材料之间无显著差异,但未植骨组的 MBL 显著大于植骨组(P 值<.001)。4 年时,皮质组的 PES 评分(9.42±0.75)显著优于胶原组(8.53±1.18)和对照组(6.07±1.89)。
与自然愈合相比,牙槽嵴保存术在种植体植入后 4 年能更好地保存边缘骨,获得更好的美学效果。皮质猪骨的临床效果优于胶原化皮质松质猪骨。