Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-02-14, 12:02:22 | version 1.38.0
I n t e n t i o n a l l y e x p o s e d m e m b r a n e Figs. 5a & b a b Figs. 5a & b The final restoration delivery at T2 showed a good esthetic result (a) and marginal periimplant bone preserved at T3 (b). elevated in order to expose the edentulous ridge. Then the alveolar ridge thickness was measured from the buccal to the palatal side at the mesiodistal midpoint (BPW), as previ- ously described (Fig. 7). Four months later, at (T2), the horizontal width of the ridge was mea- sured buccally, starting from the outer part of the implant platform (BBT; Fig. 8). All data analysis was carried out according to a pre-established analysis plan using software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 22.0, IBM, Armonk, N.Y., U.S.). Descriptive anal- ysis was performed using mean and standard deviation. Comparison of the means was per- formed by paired tests. A biostatistician with expertise in dentistry analyzed the data. – Marginal bone level changes were assessed using intraoral digital periapical radiographs taken with the paralleling technique at (T1) and 1 year after loading (T3), using a customized holder. The radiographs were accepted or rejected for evaluation based on the clarity of the implant threads. All readable radiographs were viewed in an image analysis program (Kodak Digital Imaging Software, Version 6.11.7.0, Eastman Kodak, Rochester, N.Y., U.S.) on a 24-in LCD screen (iMac, Apple, Cupertino, Calif., U.S.) and evaluated under standardized conditions (ISO 12646:2004). The software was calibrated for every image using the known implant diameter or length. The distance from the most coronal margin of the implant collar and the top of the bone crest was taken as mar- ginal bone level. The average radiographic values of the mesial and distal measurements were taken for each implant at the time of implant placement and 6 months later. The difference between the marginal bone levels at various time points was taken as marginal bone loss (MBL). An independent radiologist performed all of the bone measurements. – Gingival recession was evaluated using a ref- erence line connecting the midfacial gingival level of the 2 adjacent teeth. The changes in the gingival margin of the implant restoration were evaluated before extraction (T0) and at T3. Results In total, 47 teeth were extracted in 43 patients, 26 women and 17 men, with a mean age of 54 years (Table 1). At the last follow-up, no dropout and no deviation from the original protocol occurred. All 47 implants were osse- ointegrated and none of the prostheses failed. The follow-up ranged from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years after loading. In all of the treated cases, there was no dehiscence of the buccal or palatal portion of the implant at the moment of its exposure. There was no site infection either before or after the removal of the nonresorbable mem- brane, and no patient presented with edema or ecchymosis post-implant surgery. The mean BPS at the midpoint was 6.5 ± 1.5 mm at T0. At T1, the mean BPW was 6.30 ± 1.30 mm, with a crestal reduction of 0.19 ± 0.34 mm (P = 0.0006), while at T2, the mean BBT was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm. At T3, periapical radiographs revealed a marginal bone loss of 0.62 ± 0.16 mm in the area surrounding the implant, compared with T0. At T3, a mean soft-tissue gain of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm was recorded, with no buccal gingival recession compared with T0. 12 Volume 3 | Issue 4/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation