scholarly journals The Effect of Controlled Diabetes and Hyperglycemia on Implant Placement with Simultaneous Horizontal Guided Bone Regeneration: A Clinical Retrospective Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Paolo De Angelis ◽  
Paolo Francesco Manicone ◽  
Giulio Gasparini ◽  
Ilaria De Filippis ◽  
Margherita Giorgia Liguori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Dimensional Changes ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Implant Therapy ◽  
Hba1c Levels

Diabetes represents a challenge in implant therapy because hyperglycemia may negatively affect bone regeneration, directly compromising clinical outcomes and increasing clinical failures. The aim of this retrospective study is to analyse the prognostic significance of HbA1c levels in patients undergoing implant placement associated with horizontal guided bone regeneration. Thirty-four patients were divided into 3 groups according to their HbA1c levels: nondiabetic normoglycemic patients ( HbA 1 c < 5.7 % ), nondiabetic hyperglycemic patients ( HbA 1 c < 6.5 % ), and controlled diabetic patients ( HbA 1 c < 7 % ). Primary outcomes were dimensional changes in height (VDH) and width (DW) of the peri-implant defect. Secondary outcomes were evaluations of periodontal parameters of adjacent tooth sites, wound healing, marginal bone loss (MBL), and survival and success rates. At T 1 (6 months), mean VDH values in groups 1, 2, and 3 were, respectively, 0.07, 0.5, and 0.25 mm. Mean DW values in those same groups were, respectively, 0.07, 0.38, and 0.33 mm. HbA1c levels were not statistically related to VDH and DW values at T 1 . No statistically significant differences were observed in MBL between groups ( p = 0.230 ). Implant survival and success rates were, respectively, 98% and 96%. Simultaneous guided bone regeneration is a feasible procedure for the treatment of horizontal bone deficiencies in controlled diabetic patients.

scholarly journals Mechanisms of Guided Bone Regeneration: A Review

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Liu ◽  
David G Kerns
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Simultaneous Approach ◽  
Dimensional Changes ◽  
Barrier Membranes ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Staged Approach ◽  
Implant Therapy

Post-extraction crestal bone resorption is common and unavoidable which can lead to significant ridge dimensional changes. To regenerate enough bone for successful implant placement, Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) is often required. GBR is a surgical procedure that uses barrier membranes with or without particulate bone grafts or/and bone substitutes. There are two approaches of GBR in implant therapy: GBR at implant placement (simultaneous approach) and GBR before implant placement to increase the alveolar ridge or improve ridge morphology (staged approach). Angiogenesis and ample blood supply play a critical role in promoting bone regeneration.

scholarly journals The Use of Titanium Mesh in Guided Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Briguglio ◽  
D. Falcomatà ◽  
S. Marconcini ◽  
L. Fiorillo ◽  
R. Briguglio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Autogenous Bone ◽  
Titanium Mesh ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Prosthetic Rehabilitation ◽  
Implant Placement

Several techniques have been proposed for bone regeneration in patients with atrophic ridges. Nowadays, GBR represents the gold standard, and it allows obtaining sufficient bone volumes for a correct implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. Our goal is to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of titanium meshes in GBR in order to evaluate the reliability of the procedure, the regeneration obtained, and the failures. Furthermore, we will evaluate the success and survival rate of the inserted implants. The selected articles concern vertical and/or horizontal regeneration of the alveolar ridge using titanium grids, in association or not with biomaterials, before and simultaneously with implant placement. Six articles were selected for the present review, including a total of 139 patients, 156 sites, and 303 implants. Titanium grids in combination with autogenous bone were used in 2 cases, 5 in combination with a mixture of autogenous bone and bone substitutes. The overall survival and success rates of implants were 98.3% and 85.25%, respectively. In conclusion, our review shows how the use of titanium mesh represented a predictable method for the rehabilitation of complex atrophic sites.

Guided bone regeneration for immediate non-submerged implant placement using bioabsorbable materials in Beagle dogs

1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 303-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gérard Brunel ◽  
Edmond Benqué ◽  
Frédéric Elharar ◽  
Catherine Sansac ◽  
Jean François Duffort ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Beagle Dogs ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals Management of Retrograde Peri-Implantitis Using an Air-Abrasive Device, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, and Guided Bone Regeneration

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Soldatos ◽  
Georgios E. Romanos ◽  
Michelle Michaiel ◽  
Ali Sajadi ◽  
Nikola Angelov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Bone Density ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Etiologic Factor ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Case Description ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Maxillary Molar

Background. The placement of an implant in a previously infected site is an important etiologic factor contributing to implant failure. The aim of this case report is to present the management of retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) in a first maxillary molar site, 2 years after the implant placement. The RPI was treated using an air-abrasive device, Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and guided bone regeneration (GBR). Case Description. A 65-year-old Caucasian male presented with a draining fistula associated with an implant at tooth #3. Tooth #3 revealed periapical radiolucency two years before the implant placement. Tooth #3 was extracted, and a ridge preservation procedure was performed followed by implant rehabilitation. A periapical radiograph (PA) showed lack of bone density around the implant apex. The site was decontaminated with an air-abrasive device and Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and GBR was performed. The patient was seen every two weeks until suture removal, followed by monthly visits for 12 months. The periapical X-rays, from 6 to 13 months postoperatively, showed increased bone density around the implant apex, with no signs of residual clinical or radiographic pathology and probing depths ≤4 mm. Conclusions. The etiology of RPI in this case was the placement of an implant in a previously infected site. The use of an air-abrasive device, Er,Cr:YSGG, and GBR was utilized to treat this case of RPI. The site was monitored for 13 months, and increased radiographic bone density was noted.

scholarly journals Collagen vs expanded polytetrafluorethylene membranes during guided-bone regeneration simultaneous with implant placement – a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Sales Antônio Barbosa Junior ◽  
Angélica Maroli ◽  
Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira ◽  
Atais Bacchi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Guided Bone Regeneration ◽  
Implant Placement

Objetivo: Esta revisão sistemática avaliou a influência do tipo de membrana (colágeno reabsorvível ou politetrafluoretileno expandido não reabsorvível; e-PTFE) na regeneração óssea guia associada à colocação do implante. Métodos: Qualquer tipo de estudo clínico ou revisão de literatura foi pesquisada nas bases de dados MEDLINE / PubMed e Cochrane. Dois revisores independentes examinaram títulos / resumos de artigos e o texto completo de estudos potencialmente elegíveis. Quando os dados estavam disponíveis, a meta-análise pareada foi realizada usando modelo estatístico aleatório. Resultados: Nove estudos preencheram os critérios de inclusão, considerando 685 implantes em 360 pacientes. A regeneração óssea vertical não diferiu com o uso das duas membranas em 8 dos 9 estudos incluídos. Meta-análise não mostrou maior ganho ósseo vertical ou perda óssea vertical após a regeneração com qualquer uma das membranas. Os resultados mostraram uma tendência de maior ganho ósseo na regeneração óssea guiada horizontal com membranas de e-PTFE não reabsorvíveis (relatadas por 2 de 3 estudos). Todos os estudos mostraram claramente que ambas as membranas foram eficazes no aumento do volume ósseo. Não houve uma tendência clara de qualquer uma das duas membranas em causar mais complicações. Conclusão: o colágeno reabsorvível e as membranas não-reabsorvíveis de PTFE-e são igualmente eficazes na regeneração óssea guiada vertical; no entanto, a regeneração óssea guiada horizontal parece se beneficiar com o uso das membranas não reabsorvíveis. Ambas as membranas mostraram-se eficazes na regeneração óssea guiada e similares em relação às complicações.

Should the quality of glycemic control guide dental implant therapy in patients with diabetes? Focus on implant survival

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalia Nourah ◽  
Salwa Aldahlawi ◽  
Sebastiano Andreana
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Good Glycemic Control ◽  
Implant Therapy

Introduction: Optimal glycemic control is crucial to dental implant long-term functional and esthetic success. Despite HbA1c levels of 7% or lower used as an indicator for good glycemic control, however, this level may not be attainable for all diabetic patients. Most dentists do not consider patients with poor glycemic control candidates for implant therapy due to higher implant failure, infection or other complications. Aim: This review challenges the concept of one size fits all and aims to critically appraise the evidence for the success or failure rate of dental implants and peri-implant health outcomes in patients with less-than-optimal glycemic control. Discussion: Evidence suggests that estimating glycemic control from HbA1c measurement alone is misleading. Moreover, elevated preoperative HbA1c was not associated with increased mortality and morbidity after major surgical procedures. Literature for the survival or success of implants in diabetic patients is inconsistent due to a lack of standardized reporting of clinical data collection and outcomes. While a number of studies report that implant treatment in patients with well-controlled diabetes has a similar success rate to healthy individuals, other studies suggest that the quality of glycemic control in diabetic patients does not make a difference in the implant failure rate or marginal bone loss. This discrepancy could indicate that risk factors other than hyperglycemia may contribute to the survival of implants in diabetic patients. Conclusion: In the era of personalized medicine, the clinician should utilize individualized information and analyze all risk factors to provide the patient with evidence-based treatment options.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document