Academic Bibliography

 Search 200 years of publications by Ghent University researchers.
Advanced search
1 file | 1.27 MB
Add to list
  1. Search results
  2. A randomized controlled trial compari...

A randomized controlled trial comparing guided bone regeneration to connective tissue graft to re‐establish buccal convexity at dental implant sites : three‐year results

Eline Bouckaert, Thomas De Bruyckere (UGent) , Aryan Eghbali (UGent) , Faris Younes (UGent) , Retief Wessels and Jan Cosyn (UGent)
(2022) CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH. 33(5). p.461-471
Author
Organization
Abstract
Objectives To compare guided bone regeneration (GBR) to connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of increase in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) at three-year follow-up when applied at the buccal aspect of single implant sites demonstrating a minor horizontal alveolar defect. Materials and methods Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal alveolar defect were enrolled in a single-blind RCT. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm, received a single implant at least 3 months after tooth removal and were randomly allocated to the control (GBR) or test group (CTG) to re-establish buccal soft tissue convexity. Primary outcome was linear increase in BSP, meaning increase at the buccal aspect of the implant, based on superimposed digital surface models. Secondary outcomes were buccal bone and buccal soft tissue thickness, aesthetic and clinical parameters. Results Twenty-one patients were included per group at baseline. After three years, three patients in the GBR group and four in the CTG group were not willing to return for re-assessment. Hence, the final sample included 9 females/9 males (mean age 52) in the GBR group and 8 females / 9 males in the CTG group (mean age 49). The changes in BSP over time were not significantly different between GBR and CTG (p = 0.629). At three years, sites treated with GBR demonstrated 1.06 mm (95% CI: 0.83; 1.28) increase in BSP, whereas sites treated with CTG showed 0.99 mm (95% CI: 0.65; 1.35) increase in BSP (p = 0.699) compared to baseline. There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the parameters except for Mucosal Scarring Index, which was 1.63 (95% CI: 0.73; 2.53) lower for CTG (p = 0.002) at study termination. Conclusion There was no significant difference in linear increase in BSP between GBR and CTG after three years. Hence, clinical decision-making should be based on other factors.
Keywords
Oral Surgery, connective tissue graft, dental implant, Guided bone regeneration, single tooth, STABLE COLLAGEN MATRIX, LONG-TERM STABILITY, SOFT-TISSUE, CONTOUR AUGMENTATION, VOLUME STABILITY, WOUND CLOSURE, GBR MATERIALS, PLACEMENT, DESIGN, REPLACEMENT

Downloads

  • Download
    (...).pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 1.27 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Bouckaert, Eline, et al. “A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Guided Bone Regeneration to Connective Tissue Graft to Re‐establish Buccal Convexity at Dental Implant Sites : Three‐year Results.” CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, vol. 33, no. 5, 2022, pp. 461–71, doi:10.1111/clr.13906.
APA
Bouckaert, E., De Bruyckere, T., Eghbali, A., Younes, F., Wessels, R., & Cosyn, J. (2022). A randomized controlled trial comparing guided bone regeneration to connective tissue graft to re‐establish buccal convexity at dental implant sites : three‐year results. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 33(5), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13906
Chicago author-date
Bouckaert, Eline, Thomas De Bruyckere, Aryan Eghbali, Faris Younes, Retief Wessels, and Jan Cosyn. 2022. “A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Guided Bone Regeneration to Connective Tissue Graft to Re‐establish Buccal Convexity at Dental Implant Sites : Three‐year Results.” CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH 33 (5): 461–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13906.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Bouckaert, Eline, Thomas De Bruyckere, Aryan Eghbali, Faris Younes, Retief Wessels, and Jan Cosyn. 2022. “A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Guided Bone Regeneration to Connective Tissue Graft to Re‐establish Buccal Convexity at Dental Implant Sites : Three‐year Results.” CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH 33 (5): 461–471. doi:10.1111/clr.13906.
Vancouver
1.
Bouckaert E, De Bruyckere T, Eghbali A, Younes F, Wessels R, Cosyn J. A randomized controlled trial comparing guided bone regeneration to connective tissue graft to re‐establish buccal convexity at dental implant sites : three‐year results. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH. 2022;33(5):461–71.
IEEE
[1]
E. Bouckaert, T. De Bruyckere, A. Eghbali, F. Younes, R. Wessels, and J. Cosyn, “A randomized controlled trial comparing guided bone regeneration to connective tissue graft to re‐establish buccal convexity at dental implant sites : three‐year results,” CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 461–471, 2022.
@article{8756793,
  abstract     = {{Objectives To compare guided bone regeneration (GBR) to connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of increase in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) at three-year follow-up when applied at the buccal aspect of single implant sites demonstrating a minor horizontal alveolar defect. Materials and methods Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal alveolar defect were enrolled in a single-blind RCT. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm, received a single implant at least 3 months after tooth removal and were randomly allocated to the control (GBR) or test group (CTG) to re-establish buccal soft tissue convexity. Primary outcome was linear increase in BSP, meaning increase at the buccal aspect of the implant, based on superimposed digital surface models. Secondary outcomes were buccal bone and buccal soft tissue thickness, aesthetic and clinical parameters. Results Twenty-one patients were included per group at baseline. After three years, three patients in the GBR group and four in the CTG group were not willing to return for re-assessment. Hence, the final sample included 9 females/9 males (mean age 52) in the GBR group and 8 females / 9 males in the CTG group (mean age 49). The changes in BSP over time were not significantly different between GBR and CTG (p = 0.629). At three years, sites treated with GBR demonstrated 1.06 mm (95% CI: 0.83; 1.28) increase in BSP, whereas sites treated with CTG showed 0.99 mm (95% CI: 0.65; 1.35) increase in BSP (p = 0.699) compared to baseline. There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the parameters except for Mucosal Scarring Index, which was 1.63 (95% CI: 0.73; 2.53) lower for CTG (p = 0.002) at study termination. Conclusion There was no significant difference in linear increase in BSP between GBR and CTG after three years. Hence, clinical decision-making should be based on other factors.}},
  author       = {{Bouckaert, Eline and De Bruyckere, Thomas and Eghbali, Aryan and Younes, Faris and Wessels, Retief and Cosyn, Jan}},
  issn         = {{0905-7161}},
  journal      = {{CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH}},
  keywords     = {{Oral Surgery,connective tissue graft,dental implant,Guided bone regeneration,single tooth,STABLE COLLAGEN MATRIX,LONG-TERM STABILITY,SOFT-TISSUE,CONTOUR AUGMENTATION,VOLUME STABILITY,WOUND CLOSURE,GBR MATERIALS,PLACEMENT,DESIGN,REPLACEMENT}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{5}},
  pages        = {{461--471}},
  title        = {{A randomized controlled trial comparing guided bone regeneration to connective tissue graft to re‐establish buccal convexity at dental implant sites : three‐year results}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13906}},
  volume       = {{33}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}
Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: