» Articles » PMID: 30133718

A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Guided Bone Regeneration with Connective Tissue Graft to Re-establish Convexity at the Buccal Aspect of Single Implants: A One-year CBCT Analysis

Overview
Date 2018 Aug 23
PMID 30133718
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aim: To compare guided bone regeneration (GBR) with connective tissue graft (CTG) to re-establish convexity at the buccal aspect of single implants.

Materials And Methods: Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal alveolar defect were enrolled in a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Sites had to demonstrate buccopalatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm prior to surgery to ensure complete embedding of an implant without the need for bone augmentation. All received a single implant and were randomly allocated to the control group (GBR) or the test group (CTG). Cross-sectional CBCT images at t (before surgery), t (2 weeks after surgery) and t (1 year after surgery) were used to evaluate the buccal soft tissue profile (BSP). Secondary outcome variables were buccal bone thickness (BB), buccal soft tissue thickness (BST), vertical bone loss (VBL) and clinical parameters.

Results: Twenty-one patients were included per group (control: 11 females, mean age: 51; test: nine females, mean age: 48). At t , a significant increase in BSP between 0.7 and 1.5 mm was observed in each group (p ≤ 0.010). There was no significant difference between the groups at 1 year (p ≥ 0.126). The increase in BSP in the control group was basically the result of BB gain ranging from 0.69 to 1.15 mm. BSP gain in the test group was the result of an increase in BST ranging from 0.67 to 1.38 mm. VBL did not differ significantly between the groups (p ≥ 0.644). Implants demonstrated healthy clinical conditions with no significant differences between the groups for any of the parameters (p ≥ 0.095).

Conclusion: Within the limitations of superimposed CBCT images, GBR and CTG are effective to re-establish convexity at the buccal aspect of single implants in the short term.

Citing Articles

Horizontal Guided Bone Regeneration of the Posterior Mandible to Allow Implant Placement: 1-Year Prospective Study Results.

Lorenz J, Ghanaati S, Aleksic Z, Milinkovic I, Lazic Z, Magic M Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024; 36(1):100-116.

PMID: 39351703 PMC: 11701953. DOI: 10.1111/clr.14363.


Association of Connective Tissue Grafts in Immediate Implants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Torra-Moneny M, Mauri-Obradors E, Egido-Moreno S, Valls-Roca-Umbert J, Mari-Roig A, Lopez-Lopez J Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(6).

PMID: 38920885 PMC: 11202705. DOI: 10.3390/dj12060183.


Alveolar ridge preservation reduces the need for ancillary bone augmentation in the context of implant therapy.

Couso-Queiruga E, Mansouri C, Alade A, Allareddy T, Galindo-Moreno P, Avila-Ortiz G J Periodontol. 2022; 93(6):847-856.

PMID: 35289400 PMC: 9322559. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.22-0030.


Does simultaneous soft tissue augmentation around immediate or delayed dental implant placement using sub-epithelial connective tissue graft provide better outcomes compared to other treatment options? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aldhohrah T, Qin G, Liang D, Song W, Ge L, Mashrah M PLoS One. 2022; 17(2):e0261513.

PMID: 35143503 PMC: 8830641. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261513.


3D-based buccal augmentation for ideal prosthetic implant alignment-an optimized method and report on 7 cases with pronounced buccal concavities.

Nickenig H, Riekert M, Zirk M, Lentzen M, Zoller J, Kreppel M Clin Oral Investig. 2022; 26(5):3999-4010.

PMID: 35066689 PMC: 9072447. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04369-1.