Dental postextraction sites for implant placement Oral Health
Conditions
Interventions
In both groups, minimally invasive atraumatic tooth extraction was performed. Surgery was performed under local anesthesia using 4% articaine HCl with epinephrine (1:100,000). Teeth were removed after
and 2) particles of diameter below 250 µm, which were wasted. Then, the particulate was immersed in a cleanser solution (0.5 M NaOH and 30% (v/v) alcohol) for 7 minutes, replaced by a saline solution
Sponsors
Clinica Dentária de Carnaxide
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. 18 years old or older 2. Requiring alveolar preservation through guided bone regeneration after tooth extraction towards the placement of dental implant and type 2 extraction sockets, where the mucosal tissues are present but there is a midfacial osseous dehiscence defect classification and subclassification Type 2B with a dehiscence defect involving the middle one-third of the labial plate, approximately 7 to 9 mm from the free gingival margin
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Heavy smokers (more than 10 cigarettes per day or an electronic cigarette dose of >6mg/ml of nicotine) 2. Presence of active infection or severe inflammation in the intervention zone 3. Relevant medical history that contraindicates implant surgery 4. Immunosuppression (eg. HIV, solid-organ transplants) 5. Head and neck-irradiated patients in the past 5 years 6. Regular intake of bisphosphonates, anticoagulants or anti-inflammatories 7. Chronic drug abuse or alcoholic habits 8. Patients with poor oral hygiene (full-mouth plaque score and full-mouth bleeding score >15%) and lack of motivation 9. Uncontrolled diabetes (reported levels of glycated haemoglobin exceeding 7%) 10. Uncontrolled and /or untreated periodontal disease 11. Previous history of bone graft in the intervention zone 12. An acute endodontic lesion in the tooth to be extracted or in adjacent teeth
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The stability of implants was recorded as the average between buccolingual and mesiodistal measures (ISQ) using the Osstell IDx Mentor Resonance Frequency Analyser (Osstell AB, Goteborg, Sweden), at baseline and 3-months after placement | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Condition of periapical areas measured using radiographs carried out before tooth extraction, after GBR, and 6 months after GBR, during implant placement, at baseline, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months after prosthesis loading. Also, all patients underwent cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan six months after tooth extraction. At baseline, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months: 2. Histomorphometric analysis measured using light microspcopy: 2.1. Percentage of newly formed bone volume compared to total volume 2.2. Percentage of residual bone substitute material volume compared to total volume 2.3. Percentage of soft tissue component volume compared to total volume (as the subtraction of the percentage of newly formed bone and residual bone from the total area). These set of analyses was carried out by one examiner (G.B.) blinded to the allocated group 3. Patient-related outcomes: 3.1. Patient’s pain and discomfort perceptions were rated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) score (0–10), using ‘No Discomfort’ and ‘Worst Discomfort’ as anchors 3.2. Frequency of analgesic consumption was registered by the patient during the follow-up period in daily dairy | — |
Countries
Portugal
Contacts
Public ContactJoao Botelho
Outcome results
None listed