Effect of incision design on interproximal bone loss of teeth adjacent to single implants. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing intrasulcular vs paramarginal incision.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of incision design in implant surgery on interproximal bone loss of posterior teeth adjacent to interdental single implants, comparing intrasulcular and paramarginal incision. A further aim was to assess the influence of the incision technique on peri-implant bone remodeling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A controlled randomized clinical trial was carried out in a University Clinic. All the patients received an interdental posterior single implant. The incision type was randomly divided into two groups: (a) intrasulcular or (b) paramarginal. Standardized periapical digital radiographs were made with the parallel technique and a silicone index individualized in each patient. Radiographs were made immediately after implant placement, at abutment connection, 6 and 12 months post-loading. Two radiographic reference points were detected at the interproximal aspect of the adjacent teeth: (A) the cementoenamel junction and (B) the most coronal aspect of the bone crest. The interproximal bone loss of the adjacent teeth was calculated as the difference from A to B between the different follow-up periods and baseline. Two different examiners evaluated the radiographic measurements twice. RESULTS: Sixty patients, each with one implant, were included, 30 in each group. A mean interproximal bone loss in teeth of 0.09 mm in the intrasulcular and 0.10 mm in the paramarginal group was found at 12 months post-loading. Mean peri-implant bone remodeling was 0.17 mm in the intrasulcular group and 0.15 mm in the paramarginal group. Differences between incision types were not statistically significant (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Both incision designs used to place interdental single implants resulted in minimum bone loss at the interproximal aspect of adjacent teeth. The incision design did not significantly influence the radiographically assessed interproximal bone loss nor peri-implant bone remodeling.

Clinical parameters of implants placed in healed sites using flapped and flapless techniques: A systematic review

Background: Dental implant placement using flapless surgery is a minimally invasive technique that improves blood supply compared with flapped surgery. However, the flapless technique does not provide access to allow bone regeneration. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical parameters following implant surgery in healed sites, using two procedures: flapped vs. flapless surgery. Material and Methods: A detailed electronic search was carried out in the PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The focused question was, "How do flapped and flapless surgical techniques affect the clinical parameters of dental implants placed in healed sites?". All the studies included with a prospective controlled design were considered separately, depending on whether they had been conducted on animals or humans. The following data were recorded in all the included studies: number of implants, failures, location (maxilla, mandible), type of rehabilitation (partial or single), follow-up and flap design. The variables selected for comparison in the animal studies were the following: flap design, gingival index, mucosal height, recession and probing pocket depth. In humans studies the variables were as follows: flap design, plaque index, gingival index, recession, probing pocket depth, papilla index and keratinized gingiva. Results: Ten studies were included, six were experimental studies and four were clinical studies. Studies in animals showed better results using the flapless technique in the parameters analyzed. There is no consensus in the clinical parameters analyzed in human studies, but there is a trend to better results using flapless approach. Conclusions: The animal studies included in the present review show that implants placed in healed sites with a flapless approach have better clinical parameters than the flapped procedure in a short-term follow-up. In human studies, there is no consensus about which technique offer better results in terms of clinical parameters. Therefore, more research in humans is required in order to overcome the limitations and contrast these results (AU)

No disponible

Soft Tissue Response in Posterior Teeth Adjacent to Interdental Single Implants: A Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Intrasulcular vs Trapezoidal Incision.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the soft tissue response in posterior teeth adjacent to interdental single implants comparing intrasulcular and trapezoidal incision, and to study their evolution over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A controlled randomized clinical trial was carried out in the Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit of a University Clinic. All the included patients received an interdental single implant (Frontier 2.45, Ilerimplant; Global Medical Implants). The incision type was randomized by sealed envelopes into two groups using the SPSS statistical package (SPSS): (1) intrasulcular or (2) trapezoidal incision. Probing depth and gingival recession at the mesial and distal teeth adjacent to the implant were measured before implant placement, 1 month after surgery, the day of the abutment connection, and at 6 months and 1 year postloading. Scar formation and papilla index were measured 1 month after surgery, and at 6 months and 1 year postloading. RESULTS: Forty patients with one implant per patient were included: 20 in the intrasulcular and 20 in the trapezoidal group. No statistical differences were found between incision types in the measured parameters (probing depth, recession, and interproximal papilla). When analyzing periodontal changes of the total sample, significant differences were found between implant placement and the 1-year follow-up in recession, scar formation, and papilla index. CONCLUSION: The incision type used to place a single interdental implant did not significantly influence the periodontal parameters of the adjacent teeth. Considering the whole sample, the values between implant placement and 1 year postloading showed significant differences in recession, scar formation, and papilla index over time.