Early implant placement versus ridge preservation and delayed implant placement: Analysis of profilometric, clinician- and patient-reported outcomes from a two-centre RCT.

Autor: Thoma D; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland., Gil A; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland., de Bruyckere T; Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium., Jung RE; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland., Fukuba S; Department of Periodontology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Science, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan., Ickroth A; Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium., Strauss FJ; Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.; Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, Chile., Cosyn J; Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical oral implants research [Clin Oral Implants Res] 2024 Nov; Vol. 35 (11), pp. 1382-1393. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 04.
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14325
Abstrakt: Objectives: To compare early implant placement (EP) to alveolar ridge preservation and delayed implant placement (ARP/DP) in terms of contour changes, along with clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) until the delivery of the implant-supported restoration.
Materials and Methods: Patients with a failing single tooth in the maxilla or mandible were recruited in two centres. After tooth extraction, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EP or ARP/DP. At abutment connection and crown delivery, the buccal contour changes at 3 mm below the mucosal margin (primary outcome) along with clinician- (ease of treatment) and patient-reported outcomes were assessed using numeric rating scales and OHIP-14.
Results: A total of 46 patients were analysed. The mean buccal contour at abutment connection decreased by -1.2 ± 0.6 mm in group EP and -1.6 ± 0.8 mm in group ARP/DP (estimated mean difference; 0.45 [95%CI, -0.02; 0.94]; p = .061) with no significant differences between the groups. ARP/DP was consistently easier than EP across all stages of the surgery (estimated mean difference; 2.0 [95%CI, 1.3; 2.7] p < .001): during flap elevation (EP: 4.8 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6), implant placement (EP: 5.7 vs. ARP/DP: 2.2) and wound closure (EP: 3.4 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6). Both interventions improved quality of life but patients who underwent ARP/DP were significantly more satisfied at the time of crown delivery (ARP/DP: 9.6 vs. EP: 9.1, p = .02).
Conclusions: EP and ARP/DP show no significant differences in buccal contour changes, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes. However, ARP/DP is an easier procedure at all stages of the surgery compared to EP and could therefore be the preferred therapy for less experienced clinicians.
(© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: