Clinical and radiographic evaluation, following delivery of fixed reconstructions, at GBR treated titanium fixtures

Abstract

Conditions following incorporation of fixed reconstructions, at endosseous titanium implants augmented at local bony dehiscence and fenestration defects using a bioabsorbable Resolut membrane were studied in 7 patients. Fixture stability, radiographic marginal bone levels and peri-implant soft tissue status were evaluated at 21 membrane treated and 17 control fixtures (installed in regions of adequate bone volume), following a 2-year period of functional loading. Prosthetic reconstructions were removed and clinical examination and Periotest values revealed that all fixtures were stable. All peri-implant soft tissues were clinically healthy. The mean probing depths at buccal sites for fixtures with original dehiscence (n = 10) and fenestration (n = 11) defects were 1.6 +/- 0.7 mm and 1.2 +/- 0.4 mm respectively. The control fixture group had a mean buccal probing depth of 1.4 +/- 0.6 mm. At abutment connection radiograph membrane treated fixtures had significantly lower marginal bone levels than control fixtures, indicating that optimal bone regeneration was not achieved at all defects. Mean radiographic bone loss 23-27 months following delivery of fixed reconstructions for original dehiscence and fenestration defect fixtures was 0.7 +/- 0.8 mm and 0.8 +/- 0.6 mm respectively at mesial surfaces, and 0.8 +/- 0.7 mm and 0.6 +/- 0.5 mm at distal surfaces. In the control fixture group a mean loss of 0.7 +/- 0.5 mm at mesial surfaces and 0.5 +/- 0.4 mm at distal surfaces was found. Results showed no significant difference in the rate of bone loss following functional loading between membrane treated and control fixtures.

Crestal Bone–Level Changes Around Implants Placed in Post‐Extraction Sockets Augmented With Demineralized Freeze‐Dried Bone Allograft: A Retrospective Radiographic Study

“…In the current study, no significant differences were observed between the two groups for the amount of marginal bone loss after 1 year of implant installation. These data are in agreement with studies evaluating implants placed in native and regenerated bone 24‐26 . Mayfield et al 24 in 1998 reported a mean marginal bone loss of 0.6 mm for control and 0.7 mm for the test implants over a period of 23 to 27 months after the prosthesis installation.…”

“…These data are in agreement with studies evaluating implants placed in native and regenerated bone 24‐26 . Mayfield et al 24 in 1998 reported a mean marginal bone loss of 0.6 mm for control and 0.7 mm for the test implants over a period of 23 to 27 months after the prosthesis installation. However, in these studies, 24‐26 guided bone regeneration was performed simultaneously with implant installation to treat bone dehiscence and fenestration defects.…”

“…Mayfield et al 24 in 1998 reported a mean marginal bone loss of 0.6 mm for control and 0.7 mm for the test implants over a period of 23 to 27 months after the prosthesis installation. However, in these studies, 24‐26 guided bone regeneration was performed simultaneously with implant installation to treat bone dehiscence and fenestration defects. In the present study, we observed a difference in the percentage of implants exhibiting no marginal bone loss between the two groups (53% of the implants in the GS group versus 61% of the implants in the NGS group).…”

A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes (guided bone regeneration) in partially edentulous patients

“…A second study providing controls reported on 38 implants in seven patients (Mayfield et al 1998). Twenty‐one of these implants were placed in conjunction with GBR, whereas 17 could be placed into the host bone without regenerative therapy.…”

“…In five studies, 2‐year data accounting for 656 implants treated with GBR were reported (Dahlin et al 1991b, Mayfield et al 1998, Nevins et al 1998, Lorenzoni et al 1999, Brunel et al 2001). Of these implants 526, all reported in one study (Nevins et al 1998), yielded a survival rate of 97.5%, whereas the other 130 implants, reported in four studies (Dahlin et al 1991b, Mayfield et al 1998, Lorenzoni et al 1999, Brunel et al 2001), showed 100% survival over the 2‐year observation period.…”