Implants sites with concomitant bone regeneration using a resorbable or non-resorbable membrane result in stable marginal bone levels and similar profilometric outcomes over 5 years

Nadja Naenni,Lukas Stucki,Jürg Hüsler,David Schneider,Christoph H F Hämmerle,Ronald E Jung,Daniel S Thoma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13764
Abstract:Objectives: To assess clinical and radiographic outcomes as well as the profilometric contour alterations of peri-implant hard and soft tissues around single implants treated with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) at 5 years. Materials and methods: Twenty-seven patients presenting with a single tooth gap in the esthetic zone received a two-piece implant. GBR was randomly performed using a resorbable (RES) or a non-resorbable membrane (N-RES) combined with a bone substitute material. Follow-up examinations were performed at baseline (BL = crown insertion), 1 year (FU-1), 3 years (FU-3), and at 5 years (FU-5) including clinical and radiographic parameters as well as profilometric changes. Statistics were performed by means of parametric and nonparametric tests. Results: At 5 years, 20 out of 27 patients (9 RES, 11 N-RES) were re-examined. Median values for probing depth changed insignificantly between BL and FU-5 in both groups. The median marginal bone levels were located 0.23 mm (0.06; 0.46; RES) and 0.17 mm (0.13;0.28; N-RES) below the implant shoulder at FU-5 (changes over time p < .05). The calculated median profilometric change between BL and FU-5 was -0.28 mm (-0.53;-0.20; RES; p = .016) and -0.24 mm (-0.43;0.08; N-RES; p = .102; intergroup p = .380). The horizontal bone thickness decreased significantly between re-entry and FU-5 for group RES at all measured levels (p < .05) measuring 0.87 mm (0.0; 2.05) at the implant shoulder, whereas the decrease for group N-RES was insignificant (p = .031) with 0 mm (0; 0.84) at the implant shoulder at 5 years. Conclusions: Implants sites with concomitant GBR using a resorbable or non-resorbable membrane revealed stable marginal bone levels and clinical outcomes. Profilometric changes were clinically negligible over 5 years. The observed change in hard tissue thickness was partially compensated by an increase in soft tissue thickness.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?