LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 34 , Issue 6
November/December 2019

Pages 14571465


Outcome of Treatment with Single Implants in Preserved Versus Nonpreserved Alveolar Ridges: A 1-year Cohort Study

Elise G. Zuiderveld, DDS, PhD/Henny J.A. Meijer, DDS, PhD/Arjan Vissink, DMD, MD, PhD/Gerry M. Raghoebar, DMD, MD, PhD


DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7367

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of placement of single implants in the esthetic zone of the maxilla in preserved alveolar ridges, compared with nonpreserved alveolar ridges, on the change in midlabial mucosal level, esthetics, marginal bone level, and patient satisfaction. Materials and Methods: Patients with a failing single tooth, and demonstrating a large vertical defect (≥ 5 mm) of the labial wall of the extraction socket, were pre-augmented with a mixture of autologous bone and anorganic bovine bone. A mucosal graft sealed the pocket. After 4 months, a single implant was placed in the preserved alveolar ridge (test group; n = 20). The results were compared with those from patients who had one missing tooth and were treated with placement of an implant in a nonpreserved alveolar ridge, whereby the connective tissue graft was combined with the placement of the implant (control group; n = 20). Changes in midlabial mucosal level were scored on intraoral images. Intraoral radiographs were made to assess marginal bone level changes after definitive crown placement (1 month [T1], 12 [T12] months). The pink esthetic score/white esthetic score at T12 was used to determine esthetics. Patient satisfaction was assessed before treatment (Tpre), and at T1 and T12. Results: The mean midlabial mucosal level changes were 0.07 0.29 mm and 0.15 0.23 mm at T1 and T12 for the control and test groups, respectively (P = .01). No significant changes were observed for the other outcome variables. Conclusion: Single implant treatment in a preserved alveolar ridge and nonpreserved alveolar ridge is accompanied by clinically nonrelevant changes in the midlabial mucosal level. Changes in marginal bone level, esthetics, and patient satisfaction were comparable between the groups.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2019 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help