Dental implant placement with flapless  and flapped technique: A systematic review.

González-Argote, Javier; Alfonso-Sanchez, Ileana

doi:10.17126/joralres.2017.070

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A flapless and minimally traumatic approach was chosen to decrease crestal bone resorption due to the transient deprivation of osteogenic cells and blood supply. 26,[39][40][41] The device used for BBL has the advantage of measuring the horizontal bony changes without raising a flap. Moreover, it eliminates the need for a follow-up CBCT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of the buccal aspect around immediate implant using dual zone therapeutic concept versus buccal gap fill to bone level: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Wanis

Hosny

Nahass

2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Soft tissue esthetics for immediate implant is considered challenging when restoring a tooth in an esthetic zone. This study aimed to evaluate the buccal aspect after immediate implant using the dual-zone therapeutic concept compared to grafting the buccal gap to the bone crest.Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients were randomly assigned into either immediate implant with the dual-zone therapeutic concept (DZ, test group) or with bone grafting till buccal bone crest with immediate temporization (BCG, control group). Pink esthetic score (PES), buccal bone loss (BBL), mid-facial recession (MFR), soft tissue thickness (STT), keratinized tissue width (KTW), post-operative swelling (POS), and patient satisfaction (PS) were evaluated for

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of the buccal aspect around immediate implant using dual zone therapeutic concept versus buccal gap fill to bone level: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Wanis

Hosny

Nahass

2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The novelty of our work is purposing a flapless surgical approach (FSA) for lower M3 removal. The investigators hypothesize that, according to the literature on dental implant placement, a flapless approach would probably have less associated post-operative discomfort when used in the lower M3 removal [10][11][12]. The specific aims of the study were to retrospectively analyse the results of FSA with the traditional envelope flap (also referred as the traditional approach (TA)) in terms of pain, oedema, attached gingiva, and pocket probing depth recovery, as well as the average duration of the surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flapless Surgical Approach to Extract Impacted Inferior Third Molars: A Retrospective Clinical Study

Materni

Angelis

Tullio

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare a flapless surgical approach (FSA) with a traditional envelope flap (traditional approach (TA)). Every patient was treated with two approaches: TA and FSA. The primary outcome variables were both the discomfort during the post-operative convalescence and the correct final recovery of the impacted area. The secondary outcome variable was the average duration of the surgery. Post-operative pain and oedema were recorded. The measurements of soft tissue interface toward the distobuccal edge of the second molar were taken by periodontal probe before surgery (baseline) and 8 weeks after surgery. Statistical software was used to evaluate the data; a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Twenty-four teeth of 12 patients (six Caucasian males and six Caucasian females, aged 23 ± 4 (17–30) years) with both lower impacted third molars (Ms3) were analysed. Considering an alpha error 0.05 that sample size allows power from 0.80 to 0.90, depending on the variable evaluated. Concerning attached gingiva, oedema and pain, the linear mixed model resulted in a statistically significant difference between the TA and FSA (p = 0.003; p < 0.01; and p = 0.018, respectively). Conversely, the model did not show a difference (p = 0.322) if pocket probing depth was considered. The FSA procedure was faster (p < 0.05) than the TA procedure (17 min and 8 s (± 6 s) vs. 28 min and 6 s (± 4 s), respectively). The results suggest that the FSA could be a suitable option for improving the surgical removal of lower Ms3. However, additional randomized controlled trial studies are necessary to confirm the reliability of our procedure and to verify its suitability in more complex Ms3 classifications.

show abstract

Radiographic evaluation of hard tissue changes in open flap technique versus flapless technique for implant placement

Kumari,

Khatri,

Bansal

et al. 2024

IJPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open flap technique allows the clinician to directly visualize the alveolar bone and assess bone morphology of the ridge.However, this technique is relatively invasive and causes patient discomfort and marginal bone loss due to decreased supraperiosteal blood supply whereas the Flapless technique is one of the latest minimally invasive surgical methods of implant placement without the need to raise a mucoperiosteal flap to overcome the bone resorption process. The present study was designed to evaluate the hard tissue changes in open flap technique versus flapless ṭechnique for implant placement at the different time interval. Minimum thirty edentulous sites from Out Patient Department, Department of Periodontology (IDST) were randomly allocated to the following two groups by the flip of coin: Group I - Implant with open flap technique (fifteen sites) and Group II - Implant with flapless technique (fifteen sites). Patients were evaluated radiographically for crestal bone loss (mesial and distal) at Baseline (Immediately after implant placement), At the time of prosthetic loading and 3 months after prosthetic loading in both the groups. The result of the present study revealed that Sites where implants were placed with flapless technique showed lesser mean crestal bone loss scores as compared to sites where implants were placed with open flap technique, although the difference was insignificant. It can be concluded that flapless procedure may be considered as a better treatment option as compared to implant placed with open flap technique in terms of minimal pain, inflammation and less crestal bone loss associated with flapless technique than open flap technique.

show abstract

Dental implant placement with flapless and flapped technique: A systematic review.

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Clinical evaluation of the buccal aspect around immediate implant using dual zone therapeutic concept versus buccal gap fill to bone level: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Clinical evaluation of the buccal aspect around immediate implant using dual zone therapeutic concept versus buccal gap fill to bone level: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Flapless Surgical Approach to Extract Impacted Inferior Third Molars: A Retrospective Clinical Study

Radiographic evaluation of hard tissue changes in open flap technique versus flapless technique for implant placement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About