[A Prospective Cohort Study on the Effect of Implant Restoration Following Micro Crestal Flap-Alveolar Ridge Preservation at Molar Extraction Sockets with Severe Periodontitis].

Y P Wei,T Xu,W J Hu,Y S Liu,Y T Shi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20231123-00264
2024-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the survival rate, success rate, soft tissue conditions and marginal bone level changes of implants following micro crestal flap-alveolar ridge preservation at molar extraction sockets with severe periodontitis, compared to natural healing. Methods: From March 2015 to January 2017, patients scheduled for molar extraction as a consequence of severe periodontitis and planned implant-retained prostheses from Department of Periodontology Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology were selected. A total of 40 molar extraction sockets from 40 patients received implant placement following micro crestal flap-alveolar ridge preservation or natural healing. The front consecutive 20 teeth were assigned to the natural healing group, and the back ones were assigned to the micro crestal flap-alveolar ridge preservation (MCF-ARP) group. The superstructures were placed 6 months later. Within 2 weeks (baseline) and 1, 2 and 3 years after implant crown restoration, modified plaque index, probing depth, modified bleeding index and keratinized tissue width were recorded every six months. Parallel periapical radiographs were taken to evaluate the peri-implant marginal bone level and to calculate marginal bone loss. Independent sample t test or Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the differences in the above clinical and imaging indicators between the two groups. Results: The implant survival rate and success rate of the two groups were both 100% (20/20). There were no significant differences in the modified plaque index, probing depth, modified bleeding index, buccal keratinized tissue width and marginal bone loss between two groups at 1, 2 and 3 years after implant crown restoration (all P>0.05). Marginal bone loss was 0.22 (0.14, 0.34) mm in the natural healing group and 0.21 (0.12, 0.30) mm in the MCF-ARP group at a 3-year post-loading evaluation. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, implants placed at ridge preserved and naturally healed molar extraction sockets with severe periodontitis demonstrate comparable clinical outcomes at a 3-year post-loading evaluation.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?