Dataset Information

Guided immediate implant with and without using a mixture of autogenous and xeno bone grafts in the dental esthetic zone. A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This in vivo study aims to assess the pink esthetic score in the anterior maxilla after computer-guided immediate implant installation and fully digital immediate temporalization with and without grafting the jumping gap with a mixture of 1:1 autogenous and xenograft particulates.

Materials and methods

Twenty-four patients with non-restorable upper anterior teeth in the aesthetic zone have undergone a traumatic extraction for the non-restorable tooth followed by immediate implant placement using a 3D-printed surgical guide according to prosthetically driven implant placement. The patients were divided into two groups. The study group received the dental implant after grafting the jumping gap with 1:1 autogenous and xenograft particulates, while the control group received the dental implant without grafting the jumping gap. Each patient received a digitally fabricated, immediate, nonfunctional temporary prosthesis. The esthetic outcome was compared between the two groups using the pink esthetic score at implant insertion and after 6 months of follow-up. Statistical comparisons were carried out between the studied groups using the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

Immediately postoperatively, there was no statistically significant difference between the median PES in the two groups (P-value = 0.746). After six months, the study group showed a statistically significantly higher median PES than the control group (P-value = 0.048).

Conclusions

Grafting the jumping distance in the immediate implant protocol helps achieve a better esthetic outcome.

Clinical relevance

The use of immediate guided implant placement along with grafting the jumping gap followed by immediate digital temporalization guarantees a better esthetic outcome while preserving time, cost, and the number of clinical visits.

Trial registration

The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov with registration number NCT04096209. (19/9/2019).

SUBMITTER: El Ebiary SO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10644537 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guided immediate implant with and without using a mixture of autogenous and xeno bone grafts in the dental esthetic zone. A randomized clinical trial.

El Ebiary Sherine Osama SO Atef Mohammed M Abdelaziz Medhat Sameh MS Khashaba Mohammed M

BMC research notes 20231113 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>This in vivo study aims to assess the pink esthetic score in the anterior maxilla after computer-guided immediate implant installation and fully digital immediate temporalization with and without grafting the jumping gap with a mixture of 1:1 autogenous and xenograft particulates.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Twenty-four patients with non-restorable upper anterior teeth in the aesthetic zone have undergone a traumatic extraction for the non-restorable tooth followed by immediate ...[more]

PMID: 37957760

Similar Datasets

Project description:Several authors have suggested that implants can be placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts without affecting outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical questions: (1) What are the outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay bone grafts? And (2) is there a difference in outcomes between simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants with autogenous onlay bone grafts? Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 November 2020. Data on implant survival was extracted from all the included studies (single arm and comparative) to calculate point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird meta-analysis model. We also compared implant survival rates between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with data from comparative studies. Nineteen studies were included. Five of them compared simultaneous and delayed placement of implants. Dividing the studies based on follow-up duration, the pooled survival of implant placed simultaneously with onlay grafts after <2.5 years of follow-up was 93.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 97.4%) and after 2.5-5 years was 86% (95% CI 78.6 to 91.1%). Implant survival was found to be 85.8% (95% CI 79.6 to 90.3%) with iliac crest grafts and 95.7% (95% CI 83.9 to 93.0%) with intra-oral grafts. Our results indicated no statistically significant difference in implant survival between simultaneous and delayed placement (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I2=59.04%). Data on implant success and bone loss were limited. Data indicates that implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay grafts have a survival rate of 93.1% and 86% after a follow-up of <2.5 years and 2.5-5years respectively. A limited number of studies indicate no significant difference in implant survival between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with onlay bone grafts. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing simultaneous and delayed implant placement to provide robust evidence.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare short-term outcomes after immediate restoration of a single implant in the esthetic zone with one-abutment one-time technique comparing a conventional (control) vs. a fully digital workflow (test).Materials and methodsEighteen subjects were randomly assigned to the two groups, and a digital implant planning was performed for all. In the test group, a custom-made zirconia abutment and a CAD-CAM provisional crown were prepared prior to surgery; implants were placed using a s-CAIS guide allowing immediate restoration after surgery. In the control group, the implant was placed free-handed using a conventional surgical guide, and a custom-made zirconia abutment to support a stratified provisional crown was placed 10 days thereafter, based on a conventional impression. Implant accuracy (relative to the planning), the provisional restoration outcomes, as well as PROMs were assessed.ResultsThe implant positioning showed higher accuracy with the s-CAIS surgical guide compared to free-handed surgery (angular deviation (AD): 2.41 ± 1.27° vs. 6.26 ± 3.98°, p < 0.014; entry point deviation (CGD): 0.65 ± 0.37 mm vs. 1.27 ± 0.83 mm, p < 0.059; apical deviation (GAD): 1.36 ± 0.53 mm vs. 2.42 ± 1.02 mm, p < 0.014). The occlusion and interproximal contacts showed similar results for the two workflows (p = 0.7 and p = 0.69, respectively). The PROMs results were similar in both groups except for impression taking with intra-oral scanning preferred over conventional impressions (p = 0.014).ConclusionsBoth workflows allowed implant placement and immediate/early restoration and displayed similar clinical and esthetic outcomes. The fully digital workflow was associated with a more accurate implant position relative to planning.Clinical relevanceOur results show that both conventional and digital workflow are predictive and provide similar clinical outcomes, with extra precision provided by digitalisation.

Dataset Information

Guided immediate implant with and without using a mixture of autogenous and xeno bone grafts in the dental esthetic zone. A randomized clinical trial.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Guided immediate implant with and without using a mixture of autogenous and xeno bone grafts in the dental esthetic zone. A randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets