Bone grafting history affects soft tissue healing following implant placement.
alveolar bone loss
bone regeneration
dental implantation
surgical wound
wound healing
Journal
Journal of periodontology
ISSN: 1943-3670
Titre abrégé: J Periodontol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8000345
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
10
12
2019
revised:
06
05
2020
accepted:
06
05
2020
pubmed:
12
8
2020
medline:
20
4
2021
entrez:
12
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to determine and compare soft tissue healing outcomes following implant placement in grafted (GG) and non-grafted bone (NGG). Patients receiving single implant in a tooth-bound maxillary non-molar site were recruited. Clinical healing was documented. Volume and content of wound fluid (WF; at 3, 6, and 9 days) were compared with adjacent gingival crevicular fluid (GCF; at baseline, 1, and 4 months). Buccal flap blood perfusion recovery and changes in bone thickness were recorded. Linear mixed model regression analysis and generalized estimating equations with Bonferroni adjustments were conducted for repeated measures. Twenty-five patients (49 ± 4 years; 13 males; nine NGG) completed the study. Soft tissue closure was slower in GG (P < 0.01). Differential response in WF/GCF protein concentrations was detected for ACTH (increased in GG only) and insulin, leptin, osteocalcin (decreased in NGG only) at day 6 (P ≤0.04), with no inter-group differences at any time(P > 0.05). Blood perfusion rate decreased immediately postoperatively (P < 0.01, GG) followed by 3-day hyperemia (P > 0.05 both groups). The recovery to baseline values was almost complete for NGG whereas GG stayed ischemic even at 4 months (P = 0.05). Buccal bone thickness changes were significant in GG sites (P ≤ 0.05). History of bone grafting alters the clinical, physiological, and molecular healing response of overlying soft tissues after implant placement surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to determine and compare soft tissue healing outcomes following implant placement in grafted (GG) and non-grafted bone (NGG).
METHODS
Patients receiving single implant in a tooth-bound maxillary non-molar site were recruited. Clinical healing was documented. Volume and content of wound fluid (WF; at 3, 6, and 9 days) were compared with adjacent gingival crevicular fluid (GCF; at baseline, 1, and 4 months). Buccal flap blood perfusion recovery and changes in bone thickness were recorded. Linear mixed model regression analysis and generalized estimating equations with Bonferroni adjustments were conducted for repeated measures.
RESULTS
Twenty-five patients (49 ± 4 years; 13 males; nine NGG) completed the study. Soft tissue closure was slower in GG (P < 0.01). Differential response in WF/GCF protein concentrations was detected for ACTH (increased in GG only) and insulin, leptin, osteocalcin (decreased in NGG only) at day 6 (P ≤0.04), with no inter-group differences at any time(P > 0.05). Blood perfusion rate decreased immediately postoperatively (P < 0.01, GG) followed by 3-day hyperemia (P > 0.05 both groups). The recovery to baseline values was almost complete for NGG whereas GG stayed ischemic even at 4 months (P = 0.05). Buccal bone thickness changes were significant in GG sites (P ≤ 0.05).
CONCLUSION
History of bone grafting alters the clinical, physiological, and molecular healing response of overlying soft tissues after implant placement surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32779206
doi: 10.1002/JPER.19-0709
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
234-243Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Academy of Periodontology.
Références
Jung RE, Ioannidis A, Hammerle CHF, et al. Alveolar ridge preservation in the esthetic zone. Periodontol 2000. 2018;77(1):165-175.
Benic GI, Hammerle CH. Horizontal bone augmentation by means of guided bone regeneration. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66(1):13-40.
Jensen SS, Terheyden H. Bone augmentation procedures in localized defects in the alveolar ridge: clinical results with different bone grafts and bone-substitute materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(Suppl):218-236.
Avila-Ortiz G, Elangovan S, Kramer KW, et al. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):950-958.
Bassir SH, Alhareky M, Wangsrimongkol B, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of hard tissue outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(5):979-994.
Elnayef B, Porta C, Suarez-Lopez Del Amo F, et al. The fate of lateral ridge augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(3):622-635.
Troiano G, Zhurakivska K, Lo Muzio L, et al. Combination of bone graft and resorbable membrane for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis. J Periodontol. 2018;89(1):46-57.
DeSantis E, Lang NP, Cesaretti G, et al. Healing outcomes at implants installed in sites augmented with particulate autologous bone and xenografts. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):77-86.
Galindo-Moreno P, Fernandez-Jimenez A, Avila-Ortiz G, et al. Marginal bone loss around implants placed in maxillary native bone or grafted sinuses: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(3):378-384.
Bosshardt DD, Chappuis V, Buser D. Osseointegration of titanium, titanium alloy and zirconia dental implants: current knowledge and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):22-40.
Szabo A, Janovszky A, Pocs L, et al. The periosteal microcirculation in health and disease: an update on clinical significance. Microvasc Res. 2017;110:5-13.
Wang HL, Boyapati L. “PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent. 2006;15(1):8-17.
Leutenegger M, Martin-Williams E, Harbi P, et al. Real-time full field laser doppler imaging. Biomed Opt Express. 2011;2(6):1470-1477.
Kaner D, Soudan M, Zhao H, et al. Early healing events after periodontal surgery: observations on soft tissue healing, microcirculation and wound fluid cytokine levels. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:E283.
Barry O, Wang Y, Wahl G. Determination of baseline alveolar mucosa perfusion parameters using Laser Doppler Flowmetry and tissue spectromphotometry in healthy adults. Acta Odontol Scand. 2020;78(1):31-37.
Retzepi M, Tonetti M, Donos N. Comparison of gingival blood flow during healing of simplified papilla preservation and modified Widman flap surgery: a clinical trial using Laser Doppler Flowmetry. J ClinPeriodontol. 2007;34(10):903-911.
Retzepi M, Tonetti M, Donos N. Gingival blood flow changes following periodontal access flap surgery using laser Doppler flowmetry. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34(5):437-443.
Alssum L, Eubank TD, Roy S, et al. Gingival perfusion and tissue biomarkers during early healing of postextraction regenerative procedures: a prospective case series. J Periodontol. 2017;88(11):1163-1172.
Emecen-Huja P, Eubank TD, Shapiro V, et al. Peri-implant versus periodontal wound healing. J Clin Periodontol. 2013;40(8):816-824.
Gakonyo J, Mohamedali AJ, Mungure EK. Cone beam computed tomography assessment of the buccal bone thickness in anterior maxillary teeth: relevance to immediate implant placement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(4):880-887.
Ritter L, Elger MC, Rothamel D, et al. Accuracy of peri-implant bone evaluation using cone beam CT, digital intra-oral radiographs and histology. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2014;43(6):20130088.
Jacobs R, Vranckx M, Vanderstuyft T, et al. CBCT vs other imaging modalities to assess peri-implant bone and diagnose complications: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(Suppl 1):77-92.
Wood R, Sun Z, Chaudry J, et al. Factors affecting the accuracy of buccal alveolar bone height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(3):353-363.
Chappuis V, Bornstein MM, Buser D, et al. Influence of implant neck design on facial bone crest dimensions in the esthetic zone analyzed by cone beam CT: a comparative study with a 5-to-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(9):1055-1064.
Veltri M, Ekestubbe A, Abrahamsson I, et al. Three-dimensional buccal bone anatomy and aesthetic outcome of single dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(8):956-963.
Muller HP, Heinecke A, Schaller N, et al. Masticatory mucosa in subjects with different periodontal phenotypes. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27:621-626.
Garcia J, Dodge A, Luepke P, et al. Effect of membrane exposure on guided bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(3):328-338.
Sanz M, Lindhe J, Alcaraz J, et al. The effect of placing a bone replacement graft in the gap at immediately placed implants: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(8):902-910.
Gao X, Fraulob M, Haiat G. Biomechanical behaviours of the bone-implant interface: a review. J R Soc Interface. 2019;16(156):20190259.
Nakamoto T, Kanao M, Kondo Y, et al. Two-dimensional real-time blood flow and temperature of soft tissue around maxillary anterior implants. Implant Dent. 2012;21(6):522-527.
Nezi M, Mastorakos G, Mouslech Z. Corticotropin releasing hormone and the immune/inflammatory response. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Boyce A, eds. Endotext. South Darmouth, MA: MDText.com, Inc. Updated 2015 Jul 30. Internet. 2000-2015 Jul 30.PMID:25905246.
Wohlfahrt JC, Aass AM, Granfeldt F, et al. Sulcus fluid bone marker levels and the outcome of surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41:424-431.
Tsuchida S, Satoh M, Takiwaki M, et al. Current status of proteomic technologies for discovering and identifying gingival crevicular fluid biomarkers for periodontal disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;20(1):E86.
Covani U, Cornelini R, Barone A. Vertical crestal bone changes around implants placed into fresh extraction sockets. J Periodontol. 2007 May;78(5):810-815.
Heriveaux Y, Nguyen V-H, Geiger D, et al. Elastography of the bone-implant interface. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):14163.
Gao X, Fraulob M, Haiat G. Biomechanical behaviors of the bone-implant interface: a review. J R Soc Interface. 2019;16(156):20190259.