Osseous Healing Around Immediate Implants Placed Using Contour Augmentation: A Prospective Case Series

DeGroot, Bradley S.; Villar, Cristina Cunha; Mealey, Brian L.; Mills, Michael P.; Prihoda, Thomas J.; Huynh‐Ba, Guy

doi:10.11607/prd.3157

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following screening of the titles and abstracts, 29 publications were selected for analysis of the full-text. Of these, of change in bone dimensions 8,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] ; one study had a follow-up period that was too long 32 ; two studies included patients with implants placed within the mandible or to replace molars. 14,33 In addition, two studies 4,17 presented data from the same cohort of patients and two 34,35 were part of the same series.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…55 Sometimes, bone grafting outside of the buccal plate (simultaneous guided-bone regeneration) is performed to augment bone dimension. One study 25 found that GBR at immediate implant sites significantly increased the thickness of the labial bone plate and effectively prevented its horizontal resorption. In the present study, a smaller CHBD was reported in the grafting group within the gap compared to GBR.…”

Section: Grafting Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Buccal bone dimensional changes at immediate implant sites in the maxillary esthetic zone within a 4–12‐month follow‐up period: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Mao

Lee

et al. 2021

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the changes in buccal bone dimensions (CBD) following immediate implant placement in the maxillary esthetic zone and to identify the factors influencing the degree of buccal bone resorption for different placement and restoration protocols.Material and methods: An electronic search was conducted using the EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and MEDLINE (PubMed) databases, combined with a manual and gray literature search, up to January 2021.Selected clinical studies had to report the changes in horizontal buccal bone dimension in maxillary immediate implantation sites (premolar to premolar) at baseline and at follow-up visits within a year of implantation. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean value of the changes in horizontal and vertical buccal bone dimensions (CHBD and CVBD) around implants. To further investigate the heterogeneity and identify factors associated with buccal bone loss after immediate implant placement, subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed.Results: From a total of 3498 articles, 4 randomized controlled trials and 12 nonrandomized controlled trials were included for analysis. The mean survival rate of 568 implants was 99.6%. The mean CHBD and CVBD values were 0.71 mm (95% confidence interval: [0.56, 0.86]) and 0.58 mm (95% confidence interval: [0.43, 0.72]), respectively. For possible factors that related to bone resorption, including buccal bone thickness, flap design, bone grafting, horizontal defect dimension, and restoration protocol, bone grafting was the only variable that significantly influenced CHBD.Conclusions: This study demonstrated that immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone does not prevent buccal bone from resorption. Due to data heterogeneity and the small sample size of the studies included in the analysis, further wellconducted, randomized controlled trials with homogeneous samples are required to investigate the correlation of CBD with different variables.

show abstract