Submerged flapless technique vs. conventional flap approach for implant placement: experimental domestic pig study with 12-month follow-up
Objectives The aim of our study was to compare osseointegration and peri‐implant crestal bone resorption in submerged flapless and conventional flap surgery over a 12‐month follow‐up. Materials and methods The study used five domestic pigs. Implants were inserted 9 weeks after tooth extraction. Each...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral implants research 2016-08, Vol.27 (8), p.964-968 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 968 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 964 |
| container_title | Clinical oral implants research |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos Vlahović, Zoran Šćepanović, Miodrag Videnović, Goran Barone, Antonio Calvo-Guirado, José Luis |
| description | Objectives
The aim of our study was to compare osseointegration and peri‐implant crestal bone resorption in submerged flapless and conventional flap surgery over a 12‐month follow‐up.
Materials and methods
The study used five domestic pigs. Implants were inserted 9 weeks after tooth extraction. Each animal received six implants in the mandible, following a split‐mouth design: one side was treated using a flapless technique using mini‐incisions, while a flap was raised on the other. The animals were sacrificed at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after implant placement. Radiographic images were taken to analyze crestal bone loss, and samples were extracted for histopathological and bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) analyses.
Results
Significantly, greater crestal bone loss (P = 0.005) was obtained in the flap group compared with the flapless group. The flapless group presented significantly higher percentages of BIC (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/clr.12665 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1811892014</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1811892014</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4245-a75d96ae9047eeea514d231891ad608b66c9436371b7b285a8a13826962de9d63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkctuEzEUhi0EoqGw4AWQJTawmNT2jG_sUAQpUgQSFyGxsRzPSePiGQ_2TNO8Ak-N07RdICHhhe3Fd37pPx9CzymZ03LOXEhzyoTgD9CMCkIqwgl9iGZEE15JKugJepLzJSFEaKUfoxMmaCMVZzP0-8u07iBdQIs3wQ4BcsYjuG3vf02Ar_Icu9hfQT_62Ntww2A7DClat8WbmLDvhmD7EZfbQVfANxiuB0j-8C8Tbewgj97hwV_gPE7tHu_8uMWUVV3sx0NICHFXTcNT9GhjQ4Znt-8p-vb-3dfFebX6tPyweLuqXMMaXlnJWy0saNJIALCcNi2rqdLUtoKotRBON7WoJV3LNVPcKktrxYQWrAXdivoUvTrmlhalZB5N57ODUGpAnLKhipY0RmjzHyiRSnKpSUFf_oVeximVnWXDig7VNKzWhXp9pFyKOSfYmKFsyqa9ocQcXJri0ty4LOyL28SDovaevJNXgLMjsPMB9v9OMovV57vI6jjh8wjX9xM2_TRC1pKb7x-X5nzJFnT1Q5hF_Qc9YrfV</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2050844239</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Submerged flapless technique vs. conventional flap approach for implant placement: experimental domestic pig study with 12-month follow-up</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos ; Vlahović, Zoran ; Šćepanović, Miodrag ; Videnović, Goran ; Barone, Antonio ; Calvo-Guirado, José Luis</creator><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos ; Vlahović, Zoran ; Šćepanović, Miodrag ; Videnović, Goran ; Barone, Antonio ; Calvo-Guirado, José Luis</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
The aim of our study was to compare osseointegration and peri‐implant crestal bone resorption in submerged flapless and conventional flap surgery over a 12‐month follow‐up.
Materials and methods
The study used five domestic pigs. Implants were inserted 9 weeks after tooth extraction. Each animal received six implants in the mandible, following a split‐mouth design: one side was treated using a flapless technique using mini‐incisions, while a flap was raised on the other. The animals were sacrificed at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after implant placement. Radiographic images were taken to analyze crestal bone loss, and samples were extracted for histopathological and bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) analyses.
Results
Significantly, greater crestal bone loss (P = 0.005) was obtained in the flap group compared with the flapless group. The flapless group presented significantly higher percentages of BIC (P < 0.05) at 3, 6 and 12 months compared with the conventional flap group.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this experimental animal study, it may be concluded that the type of surgery (flap or flapless) affects peri‐implant bone preservation and osseointegration of regular platform implants. Flapless surgery is associated with peri‐implant crestal bone preservation. Flapless surgery in combination with submerged implants allows higher osseointegration values.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.12665</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26147852</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Animals ; Bone implants ; Bone loss ; Bone resorption ; Bone Resorption - diagnostic imaging ; Bone surgery ; bone-to-implant contact ; crestal bone loss ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods ; Dental Implants ; Dentistry ; flapless ; Follow-Up Studies ; Mandible ; Mandible - diagnostic imaging ; Mandible - surgery ; mini-incision ; Models, Animal ; Osseointegration ; Placement ; Preservation ; Surgery ; Surgical implants ; Swine ; Teeth ; Tooth extractions</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2016-08, Vol.27 (8), p.964-968</ispartof><rights>2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4245-a75d96ae9047eeea514d231891ad608b66c9436371b7b285a8a13826962de9d63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4245-a75d96ae9047eeea514d231891ad608b66c9436371b7b285a8a13826962de9d63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fclr.12665$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fclr.12665$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26147852$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlahović, Zoran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Šćepanović, Miodrag</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Videnović, Goran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barone, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calvo-Guirado, José Luis</creatorcontrib><title>Submerged flapless technique vs. conventional flap approach for implant placement: experimental domestic pig study with 12-month follow-up</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</addtitle><description>Objectives
The aim of our study was to compare osseointegration and peri‐implant crestal bone resorption in submerged flapless and conventional flap surgery over a 12‐month follow‐up.
Materials and methods
The study used five domestic pigs. Implants were inserted 9 weeks after tooth extraction. Each animal received six implants in the mandible, following a split‐mouth design: one side was treated using a flapless technique using mini‐incisions, while a flap was raised on the other. The animals were sacrificed at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after implant placement. Radiographic images were taken to analyze crestal bone loss, and samples were extracted for histopathological and bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) analyses.
Results
Significantly, greater crestal bone loss (P = 0.005) was obtained in the flap group compared with the flapless group. The flapless group presented significantly higher percentages of BIC (P < 0.05) at 3, 6 and 12 months compared with the conventional flap group.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this experimental animal study, it may be concluded that the type of surgery (flap or flapless) affects peri‐implant bone preservation and osseointegration of regular platform implants. Flapless surgery is associated with peri‐implant crestal bone preservation. Flapless surgery in combination with submerged implants allows higher osseointegration values.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bone implants</subject><subject>Bone loss</subject><subject>Bone resorption</subject><subject>Bone Resorption - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Bone surgery</subject><subject>bone-to-implant contact</subject><subject>crestal bone loss</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>flapless</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>Mandible - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Mandible - surgery</subject><subject>mini-incision</subject><subject>Models, Animal</subject><subject>Osseointegration</subject><subject>Placement</subject><subject>Preservation</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical implants</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Tooth extractions</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkctuEzEUhi0EoqGw4AWQJTawmNT2jG_sUAQpUgQSFyGxsRzPSePiGQ_2TNO8Ak-N07RdICHhhe3Fd37pPx9CzymZ03LOXEhzyoTgD9CMCkIqwgl9iGZEE15JKugJepLzJSFEaKUfoxMmaCMVZzP0-8u07iBdQIs3wQ4BcsYjuG3vf02Ar_Icu9hfQT_62Ntww2A7DClat8WbmLDvhmD7EZfbQVfANxiuB0j-8C8Tbewgj97hwV_gPE7tHu_8uMWUVV3sx0NICHFXTcNT9GhjQ4Znt-8p-vb-3dfFebX6tPyweLuqXMMaXlnJWy0saNJIALCcNi2rqdLUtoKotRBON7WoJV3LNVPcKktrxYQWrAXdivoUvTrmlhalZB5N57ODUGpAnLKhipY0RmjzHyiRSnKpSUFf_oVeximVnWXDig7VNKzWhXp9pFyKOSfYmKFsyqa9ocQcXJri0ty4LOyL28SDovaevJNXgLMjsPMB9v9OMovV57vI6jjh8wjX9xM2_TRC1pKb7x-X5nzJFnT1Q5hF_Qc9YrfV</recordid><startdate>201608</startdate><enddate>201608</enddate><creator>Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos</creator><creator>Vlahović, Zoran</creator><creator>Šćepanović, Miodrag</creator><creator>Videnović, Goran</creator><creator>Barone, Antonio</creator><creator>Calvo-Guirado, José Luis</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201608</creationdate><title>Submerged flapless technique vs. conventional flap approach for implant placement: experimental domestic pig study with 12-month follow-up</title><author>Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos ; Vlahović, Zoran ; Šćepanović, Miodrag ; Videnović, Goran ; Barone, Antonio ; Calvo-Guirado, José Luis</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4245-a75d96ae9047eeea514d231891ad608b66c9436371b7b285a8a13826962de9d63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bone implants</topic><topic>Bone loss</topic><topic>Bone resorption</topic><topic>Bone Resorption - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Bone surgery</topic><topic>bone-to-implant contact</topic><topic>crestal bone loss</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>flapless</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>Mandible - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Mandible - surgery</topic><topic>mini-incision</topic><topic>Models, Animal</topic><topic>Osseointegration</topic><topic>Placement</topic><topic>Preservation</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical implants</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Tooth extractions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlahović, Zoran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Šćepanović, Miodrag</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Videnović, Goran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barone, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calvo-Guirado, José Luis</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos</au><au>Vlahović, Zoran</au><au>Šćepanović, Miodrag</au><au>Videnović, Goran</au><au>Barone, Antonio</au><au>Calvo-Guirado, José Luis</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Submerged flapless technique vs. conventional flap approach for implant placement: experimental domestic pig study with 12-month follow-up</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</addtitle><date>2016-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>964</spage><epage>968</epage><pages>964-968</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>Objectives
The aim of our study was to compare osseointegration and peri‐implant crestal bone resorption in submerged flapless and conventional flap surgery over a 12‐month follow‐up.
Materials and methods
The study used five domestic pigs. Implants were inserted 9 weeks after tooth extraction. Each animal received six implants in the mandible, following a split‐mouth design: one side was treated using a flapless technique using mini‐incisions, while a flap was raised on the other. The animals were sacrificed at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after implant placement. Radiographic images were taken to analyze crestal bone loss, and samples were extracted for histopathological and bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) analyses.
Results
Significantly, greater crestal bone loss (P = 0.005) was obtained in the flap group compared with the flapless group. The flapless group presented significantly higher percentages of BIC (P < 0.05) at 3, 6 and 12 months compared with the conventional flap group.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this experimental animal study, it may be concluded that the type of surgery (flap or flapless) affects peri‐implant bone preservation and osseointegration of regular platform implants. Flapless surgery is associated with peri‐implant crestal bone preservation. Flapless surgery in combination with submerged implants allows higher osseointegration values.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26147852</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.12665</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0905-7161 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral implants research, 2016-08, Vol.27 (8), p.964-968 |
| issn | 0905-7161 1600-0501 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1811892014 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Animals Bone implants Bone loss Bone resorption Bone Resorption - diagnostic imaging Bone surgery bone-to-implant contact crestal bone loss Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods Dental Implants Dentistry flapless Follow-Up Studies Mandible Mandible - diagnostic imaging Mandible - surgery mini-incision Models, Animal Osseointegration Placement Preservation Surgery Surgical implants Swine Teeth Tooth extractions |
| title | Submerged flapless technique vs. conventional flap approach for implant placement: experimental domestic pig study with 12-month follow-up |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T05%3A14%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Submerged%20flapless%20technique%20vs.%20conventional%20flap%20approach%20for%20implant%20placement:%20experimental%20domestic%20pig%20study%20with%2012-month%20follow-up&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=P%C3%A9rez-Albacete%20Mart%C3%ADnez,%20Carlos&rft.date=2016-08&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=964&rft.epage=968&rft.pages=964-968&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.12665&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1811892014%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2050844239&rft_id=info:pmid/26147852&rfr_iscdi=true |