TY - JOUR
T1 - Early implant placement with or without alveolar ridge preservation in single tooth gaps renders similar esthetic, clinical and patient-reported outcome measures
T2 - One-year results of a randomized clinical trial
AU - Jonker, Brend P.
AU - Strauss, Franz J.
AU - Naenni, Nadja
AU - Jung, Ronald E.
AU - Wolvius, Eppo B.
AU - Pijpe, Justin
N1 - Funding Information:
Implants were provided by Straumann AG and biomaterials by Geistlich Pharma AG
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Objectives: To test whether early implant placement with alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) results in different esthetic, clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared with early implant placement without ARP. Material and methods: Seventy-five patients requiring single tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla were recruited. Following tooth extraction, the patients were randomly allocated to three groups: (a) ARP using demineralized bovine bone mineral containing 10% collagen (DBBM-C) covered by a collagen matrix (CM) (n = 25), (b) ARP using DBBM-C covered with a palatal graft (PG) (n = 25) and (c) spontaneous healing (control) (n = 25). Eight weeks after tooth extraction, a CBCT was taken and early implant placement was performed in all patients. Esthetic, clinical and PROMs were evaluated one year post-loading. Results: A total of 70 patients were available for re-examination at one year post-loading. The median mid-facial mucosal margin change amounted to −0.02 mm (IQR −0.27–0.46) in the CM group, −0.13 mm (IQR −0.44–0.25) in the PG group and −0.14 mm (IQR −0.29–0.07) in the control group, with no significant differences between the groups. Mean PES scores amounted to 7.0 ± 1.4 in the CM group, 7.1 ± 1.5 in the PG group and 7.3 ± 1.7 in the control group without significant differences between the groups. Plaque, bleeding on probing and probing depth did not differ between treatment groups. PROMs in general revealed no significant differences between the groups. Conclusion: Early implant placement with ARP using either a collagen matrix or a palatal graft rendered similar esthetic, clinical and PROMs to early implant placement without ARP. When a failing tooth can be replaced with an implant within 2 months after tooth extraction, the added value of ARP might be clinically negligible.
AB - Objectives: To test whether early implant placement with alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) results in different esthetic, clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared with early implant placement without ARP. Material and methods: Seventy-five patients requiring single tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla were recruited. Following tooth extraction, the patients were randomly allocated to three groups: (a) ARP using demineralized bovine bone mineral containing 10% collagen (DBBM-C) covered by a collagen matrix (CM) (n = 25), (b) ARP using DBBM-C covered with a palatal graft (PG) (n = 25) and (c) spontaneous healing (control) (n = 25). Eight weeks after tooth extraction, a CBCT was taken and early implant placement was performed in all patients. Esthetic, clinical and PROMs were evaluated one year post-loading. Results: A total of 70 patients were available for re-examination at one year post-loading. The median mid-facial mucosal margin change amounted to −0.02 mm (IQR −0.27–0.46) in the CM group, −0.13 mm (IQR −0.44–0.25) in the PG group and −0.14 mm (IQR −0.29–0.07) in the control group, with no significant differences between the groups. Mean PES scores amounted to 7.0 ± 1.4 in the CM group, 7.1 ± 1.5 in the PG group and 7.3 ± 1.7 in the control group without significant differences between the groups. Plaque, bleeding on probing and probing depth did not differ between treatment groups. PROMs in general revealed no significant differences between the groups. Conclusion: Early implant placement with ARP using either a collagen matrix or a palatal graft rendered similar esthetic, clinical and PROMs to early implant placement without ARP. When a failing tooth can be replaced with an implant within 2 months after tooth extraction, the added value of ARP might be clinically negligible.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85109076456&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/clr.13796
DO - 10.1111/clr.13796
M3 - Article
C2 - 34129708
AN - SCOPUS:85109076456
SN - 0905-7161
VL - 32
SP - 1041
EP - 1051
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
IS - 9
ER -