Assessment of vertical ridge augmentation and marginal bone loss using autogenous onlay vs inlay grafting techniques with simultaneous implant placement in the anterior maxillary esthetic zone: A randomized clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1140-1147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed El Zahwy ◽  
Said Abd allah K. Taha ◽  
Ragia Mounir ◽  
Mohamed Mounir
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Ridge Augmentation ◽  
Implant Placement

Influence of abutment disconnection on peri‐implant marginal bone loss: A randomized clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciano de Freitas Guimarães Praça ◽  
Renata Cordeiro Teixeira ◽  
Rodrigo Otavio Rego
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

scholarly journals Marginal Bone Remodeling around healing Abutment vs Final Abutment Placement at Second Stage Implant Surgery: A 12-month Randomized Clinical Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Younes ◽  
Antoine Berberi ◽  
Nabih Nader ◽  
Maissa Aboulhosn ◽  
Cordahi Manal
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Remodeling ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Stable Connection

ABSTRACT Background The periimplant bone level has been used as one of the criteria to assess the success of dental implants. It has been documented that the bone supporting two-piece implants undergoes resorption first following the second-stage surgery and later on further to abutment connection and delivery of the final prosthesis. Objective The aim of this multicentric randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the crestal bone resorption around internal connection dental implants using a new surgical protocol that aims to respect the biological distance, relying on the benefit of a friction fit connection abutment (test group) compared with implants receiving conventional healing abutments at secondstage surgery (control group). Materials and methods A total of partially edentulous patients were consecutively treated at two private clinics, with two adjacent two-stage implants. Three months after the first surgery, one of the implants was randomly allocated to the control group and was uncovered using a healing abutment, while the other implant received a standard final abutment and was seated and tightened to 30 Ncm. At each step of the prosthetic try-in, the abutment in the test group was removed and then retightened to 30 Ncm. Horizontal bone changes were assessed using periapical radiographs immediately after implant placement and at 3 (second-stage surgery), 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up examinations. Results At 12 months follow-up, no implant failure was reported in both groups. In the control group, the mean periimplant bone resorption was 0.249 ± 0.362 at M3, 0.773 ± 0.413 at M6, 0.904 ± 0.36 at M9 and 1.047 ± 0.395 at M12. The test group revealed a statistically significant lower marginal bone loss of 20.88% at M3 (0.197 ± 0.262), 22.25% at M6 (0.601 ± 0.386), 24.23% at M9 (0.685 ± 0.341) and 19.2% at M9 (0.846 ± 0.454). The results revealed that bone loss increased over time, with the greatest change in bone loss occurring between 3 and 6 months. Alveolar bone loss was significantly greater in the control condition than the test condition. Conclusion The results of this prospective study demonstrated the benefit of placing a prosthetic component with a stable connection at second-stage surgery, in terms of reduced marginal bone remodeling when compared with conventional procedure. Clinical significance. The use of a stable connection in a healing component during try-in stages prior to final restoration placement leads to less periimplant marginal bone loss. How to cite this article Nader N, Aboulhosn M, Berberi A, Manal C, Younes R. Marginal Bone Remodeling around healing Abutment vs Final Abutment Placement at Second Stage Surgery: A 12-month Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(1):7-15.

Does Apico-Coronal Implant Position Influence Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss? A 36-Month Follow-Up Randomized Clinical Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilario Pellicer-Chover ◽  
Maria Peñarrocha-Diago ◽  
Amparo Aloy-Prosper ◽  
Luigi Canullo ◽  
Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Implant Position

scholarly journals Peri‐implant marginal bone loss reduction with platform‐switching components: 5‐Year post‐loading results of an equivalence randomized clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 678-687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Messias ◽  
Salomão Rocha ◽  
Wilfried Wagner ◽  
Jörg Wiltfang ◽  
Maximilian Moergel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Loss Reduction ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Platform Switching

The influence of titanium base abutments on peri‐implant soft tissue inflammatory parameters and marginal bone loss: A randomized clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-548
Author(s):  
Saulo Pamato ◽  
Heitor Marques Honório ◽  
Jorge Alexandre Costa ◽  
Jefferson Luiz Traebert ◽  
Estevam Augusto Bonfante ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Inflammatory Parameters
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document