Immediate implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration in the esthetic zone: 10‐year clinical and radiographic outcomes. Issue 2 (22nd April 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kuchler, Ulrike; Chappuis, Vivianne; Gruber, Reinhard; Lang, Niklaus P.; Salvi, Giovanni E.
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 27:Issue 2(2016)
• Page Start: 253
• Page End: 257
• Publication Date: 2015-04-22
• Subjects: bone -- cone beam computed tomography -- dental implant -- esthetics -- immediate implant; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12586
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: To associate the dimension of the facial bone wall with clinical, radiological, and patient‐centered outcomes at least 10 years after immediate implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration in a retrospective study. Material and methods: Primary endpoint was the distance from the implant shoulder (IS) to the first bone‐to‐implant contact (IS‐BIC10y ). Secondary endpoints included the facial bone thickness (BT10y ) 2, 4, and 6 mm apical to the IS, and the implant position. At baseline, the horizontal defect width (HDWBL ) from the implant surface to the alveolar wall was recorded. At recall, distance from the IS to the mucosal margin (IS‐MM10y ), degree of soft tissue coverage of the mesial and distal aspects of the implants (PISm10y, PISd10y ; Papilla Index), pocket probing depth (PPD10y ), and patient‐centered outcomes were determined. Width of the keratinized mucosa (KM), Full‐Mouth Plaque and Bleeding Score (FMPS, FMBS) were available for both time points. Results: Of the 20 patients who underwent immediate implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration and transmucosal healing, nine males and eight females with a median age of 62 years (42 min, 84 max) were followed up for a median period of 10.5 y (min 10.1 max 11.5). The 10‐year implant survival rate was 100%. Multivariate regression analysis revealed a correlation of the IS‐BIC10y, controlled for age and gender, with four parameters: HDWBL ( P = 0.03), KMBL ‐10 ( P = 0.02), BT10 4 mm ( P = 0.01), and BT10 6 mm ( P = 0.01). Conclusion: Within the conditions of the present study, the horizontal defect width was the main indicator for the vertical dimension of the facial bone. The facial bone dimension was further associated with a reduction in the width of the keratinized mucosa and the dimension of the buccal bone.