Comparison of the dimensional changes of hard and soft peri-implant tissues around single immediate post-extraction implants in the esthetic zone with socket shield technique versus using xenograft : A randomized controlled clinical trial / Mohamed Atef Abdelmoneium ; Supervised Amr Fouad Zahran , Mona Salah Edeen Darhous , Ahmed Elbarbary

By:

Mohamed Atef Abdelmoneium

Contributor(s):

Material type: Text

TextLanguage: English Publication details: Cairo : Mohamed Atef Abdelmoneium , 2020Description: 239 P. : charts , facsimiles ; 25cmOther title:

مقارنة التغييرات في أبعاد النسج الصلبة والرخوة حول الزرعات المفردة الفورية بعد القلع فى المنطقة التجميلية باستخدام تقنية حماية السنخ مقارنة مع استخدام الطعوم الحيوانية : دراسة مقارنة عشوائية سريرية [Added title page title]

Subject(s):

Available additional physical forms:

Issued also as CD

Dissertation note: Thesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Periodontology Summary: Background: Although immediate implant placement is a predictable procedure, buccal bone resorption and midfacial mucosal recession are common complications. Several surgical procedures have been introduced in attempt to prevent these complications. Materials and methods: 42 patients with single non-restorable tooth in the esthetic zone replaced with an immediate implant. Patients were randomly assigned to SST (n=21) and grafting the buccal gap with xenograft (n=21). The esthetic outcomes were evaluated by assessing the pink esthetic score (PES) and the amount of midfacial mucosal recession.The vertical and the horizontal buccal bone resorption were also measured in addition to patient satisfaction assessment through a VAS based questionnaire. Results: All implants were clinical successful. The results of the present study showed that the socket shield technique yielded significantly less vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption of 0.35 ± 0.62 mm and 0.29 ± 0.34mm (9.59%) respectively compared to the filling the buccal gap with xenograft which yielded vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption of 1.72 ± 1.02 mm and 1.45 ± 0.72 mm (46.24%) respectively. Also, there was significantly greater midfacial mucosal recession in the xenograft group of 0.466 ± 0.58 mm compared to midfacial mucosal coronal migration of 0.45 ± 0.75 mm in the socket shield group. However, there was no significant difference regarding the total PES with median of 12 in both treatment groups. Similarly, patients were highly satisfied in terms of function and esthetics with no significant difference between both treatment approaches

Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.

Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)

Holdings
Item type	Current library	Home library	Call number	Copy number	Status	Date due	Barcode
Thesis	قاعة الرسائل الجامعية - الدور الاول	المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة	Cai01.09.08.Ph.D.2020.Mo.C (Browse shelf(Opens below))		Not for loan		01010110083660000
CD - Rom	مخـــزن الرســائل الجـــامعية - البدروم	المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة	Cai01.09.08.Ph.D.2020.Mo.C (Browse shelf(Opens below))	83660.CD	Not for loan		01020110083660000

Thesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Periodontology

Background: Although immediate implant placement is a predictable procedure, buccal bone resorption and midfacial mucosal recession are common complications. Several surgical procedures have been introduced in attempt to prevent these complications. Materials and methods: 42 patients with single non-restorable tooth in the esthetic zone replaced with an immediate implant. Patients were randomly assigned to SST (n=21) and grafting the buccal gap with xenograft (n=21). The esthetic outcomes were evaluated by assessing the pink esthetic score (PES) and the amount of midfacial mucosal recession.The vertical and the horizontal buccal bone resorption were also measured in addition to patient satisfaction assessment through a VAS based questionnaire. Results: All implants were clinical successful. The results of the present study showed that the socket shield technique yielded significantly less vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption of 0.35 ± 0.62 mm and 0.29 ± 0.34mm (9.59%) respectively compared to the filling the buccal gap with xenograft which yielded vertical and horizontal buccal bone resorption of 1.72 ± 1.02 mm and 1.45 ± 0.72 mm (46.24%) respectively. Also, there was significantly greater midfacial mucosal recession in the xenograft group of 0.466 ± 0.58 mm compared to midfacial mucosal coronal migration of 0.45 ± 0.75 mm in the socket shield group. However, there was no significant difference regarding the total PES with median of 12 in both treatment groups. Similarly, patients were highly satisfied in terms of function and esthetics with no significant difference between both treatment approaches

Issued also as CD

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.