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 Buccal plate reconstruction with an intentionally exposed nonresorbable membrane: 1 year after loading results of a prospective study Roberto Luongo,a Giuseppe Bianco,b Calogero Bugeac & Marco Tallaricod a Ashman Department of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, U.S.; private practice, Bari, Italy b Ashman Department of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, U.S.; private practice, Rome, Italy c Private practice, Galatone, Italy d Aldent University, Tirana, Albania; private practice, Rome, Italy C o r r e s p o n d i n g a u t h o r : Dr. Marco Tallarico Via di Val Tellina, 116 00151 Rome Italy T +39 328 075 8769 me@studiomarcotallarico.it H o w t o c i t e t h i s a r t i c l e : Luongo R, Bianco G, Bugea C, Tallarico M. Buccal plate reconstruction with an intentionally exposed nonresorbable membrane: 1 year after loading results of a prospective study. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2017 Dec;3(4):8–14. Abstract O b j e c t i v e The aim of this study was to investigate the barrier effect of a high- density polytetrafluoroethylene (d-PTFE) membrane left intentionally exposed in post-extraction sockets grafted with an allograft biomaterial and removed after 5 weeks. M a t e r i a l s a n d m e t h o d s Forty-seven hopeless teeth were extracted. Residual sockets were grafted with an allograft biomaterial and covered with a d-PTFE mem- brane. Six months later, 47 submerged implants were installed. Four months later, implants were uncovered and a temporary restoration was delivered. Outcomes were implant and prosthetic survival rate, compli- cations, alveolar ridge width measurement, marginal bone loss (MBL) and gingival recession. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 3 years. The buccal plate was measured after tooth extraction (BPS), at implant placement (BPW) and at implant uncovering/loading (BBT). R e s u l t s No deviation from the original protocol occurred. All of the implants were osseointegrated. None of the prostheses failed and no complications occurred during the follow-up. The mean BPS at the midpoint was 6.5 ± 1.5 mm (at the time of extraction; T0). At time of implant placement (T1), the mean BPW was 6.30 ± 1.30 mm, with a crestal reduction of 0.19 ± 0.34 mm (P = 0.0006). At implant uncovering/loading, the mean BBT was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm. One year after loading (T3), periapical radiographs revealed a mean MBL of 0.62 ± 0.16 mm, compared with T1. One year after initial loading there was no buccal gingival recession compared with T0, with a mean soft-tissue creeping of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm. C o n c l u s i o n Buccal plate reconstruction with an intentionally exposed nonresorbable membrane is an effective and easy procedure for regeneration of a resorbed buccal bone plate. K e y w o r d s Dental implants, biomaterials, guided bone regeneration, dense PTFE. 08 Volume 3 | Issue 4/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation