Cha Jae-Kook, Jung Ui-Won, Montero-Solis Eduardo, Sanz-Sánchez Ignacio, Sanz-Alonso Mariano
Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.
ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases) Research Group, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2024 Dec;26(6):1233-1244. doi: 10.1111/cid.13386. Epub 2024 Sep 3.
To evaluate the efficacy of guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of peri-implant dehiscence defects using a synthetic bone substitute (SBS) or a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) as a bone substitute.
Patients with expected dehiscence defects following implant placement were randomized to use either SBS or DBBM together with a bioabsorbable collagen membrane over dehiscenced implant surfaces aimed for GBR. The changes in the bone defect size were measured before the GBR procedure and 6 months after implant placement at the re-entry surgery. Secondary outcomes included peri-implant health outcomes, implant cumulative survival rates, bone level changes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) at prosthesis delivery and 1-year follow-up.
Of the 49 included patients, 24 were treated with SBS and 25 with DBBM. In the SBS group, the defect height (DH) at implant insertion was 5.1 ± 2.6 mm and was reduced at re-entry to 1.3 ± 2.0 mm (74.5%). In the DBBM group, the respective changes in DH were 4.1 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 1.9 mm (63.4%). These differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.216). The complete defect resolution rate was also comparable in both groups without statistical difference (62.5% of patients (15/24) vs. 44% of patients (11/25)). Overall, the marginal bone levels remained stable during the 1-year follow-up in both groups.
The SBS is noninferior to DBBM for simultaneous GBR to implant placement at implant sites with buccal dehiscences in terms of defect resolution and evaluated secondary outcomes (KCT0008393 - this clinical trial was not registered before participant recruitment and randomization).
评估使用合成骨替代物(SBS)或脱蛋白牛骨矿物质(DBBM)作为骨替代物的引导骨再生(GBR)治疗种植体周围裂开性骨缺损的疗效。
预计种植体植入后会出现裂开性骨缺损的患者被随机分为两组,一组使用SBS,另一组使用DBBM,并在裂开的种植体表面覆盖生物可吸收胶原膜以进行GBR。在GBR手术前以及种植体植入后6个月再次手术时测量骨缺损大小的变化。次要观察指标包括种植体周围健康状况、种植体累积生存率、骨水平变化以及在义齿交付时和1年随访时患者报告的结局(PROMs)。
纳入的49例患者中,24例接受SBS治疗,25例接受DBBM治疗。在SBS组中,种植体植入时的缺损高度(DH)为5.1±2.6毫米,再次手术时降至1.3±2.0毫米(减少了74.5%)。在DBBM组中,DH的相应变化分别为4.1±1.7毫米和1.5±1.9毫米(减少了63.4%)。这些差异无统计学意义(p = 0.216)。两组的完全骨缺损修复率也相当,无统计学差异(患者的62.5%(15/24)对44%(11/25))。总体而言,两组在1年随访期间边缘骨水平均保持稳定。
在种植体颊侧裂开的种植部位,就骨缺损修复和评估的次要观察指标而言,SBS在与种植体植入同时进行GBR方面不劣于DBBM(KCT0008393 - 该临床试验在招募参与者和随机分组之前未进行注册)。