Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Archive ouverte UNIG...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Journal of Periodontology
Article . 2012 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
versions View all 5 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate and Compare Implants Placed in Augmented Versus Non‐Augmented Extraction Sockets: 3‐Year Results

Authors: Bruno Orlando; Bruno Orlando; Simone Marconcini; Giacomo Derchi; Ugo Covani; Ugo Covani; Antonio Barone; +2 Authors

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate and Compare Implants Placed in Augmented Versus Non‐Augmented Extraction Sockets: 3‐Year Results

Abstract

Background: The alveolar ridge undergoes reabsorption and atrophy subsequent to tooth removal and thus exhibits a wide range of dimensional changes. Preservation of the alveolar crest after tooth extraction is essential to enhance the surgical site before implant fixture placement. The aim of this randomized clinical study is to investigate and compare the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant insertion, as well as the success rate and marginal bone loss for implants placed in the grafted sites versus those placed in naturally healed sites.Methods: Forty patients with ≥1 hopeless tooth were randomly allocated to: 1) a test group, receiving extraction and grafting corticocancellous porcine bone; and 2) a control group, receiving extraction without any graft. After 7 months of healing, implants were inserted in each of the sites. The implants were submerged and loaded after 4 months with metal–ceramic rehabilitation. The follow‐up included evaluation of implant diameter and length, the need for additional augmentation procedures at implant placement, implant failure, and marginal bone level changes. All patients were followed over a 3‐year period.Results: One implant failed in the control group at the second stage of surgery (6 months after placement); one implant failed in the test group after 2 years of loading. The cumulative implant success rate at the 3‐year follow‐up visit reached 95% for both groups. No statistically significant differences were detected for marginal bone changes between the two groups.Conclusions: It was concluded that implants placed into grafted extraction sockets exhibited a clinical performance similar to implants placed into non‐grafted sites in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss. However, grafted sites allowed placement of larger implants and required less augmentation procedures at implant placement when compared to naturally healed sites.

Keywords

Adult, Male, Alveolar Process/pathology, Transplantation, Heterologous, Alveolar Bone Loss, Surgical Flaps, Alveolar Bone Loss/surgery, Bone Substitutes/therapeutic use, Alveolar Process, Humans, Prospective Studies, Dental Restoration Failure, Bone Transplantation/methods, Aged, Dental Implants, Bone Transplantation, Crowns, Alveolar Ridge Augmentation/methods, Osseointegration/physiology, Tooth Socket/surgery, Dental Implantation, Endosseous, Membranes, Artificial, Alveolar Ridge Augmentation, Middle Aged, Bone Remodeling/physiology, Treatment Outcome, Dental Prosthesis Design, Tooth Extraction, Bone Substitutes, Female, Bone Remodeling, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Follow-Up Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    76
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
76
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!