Influence of Removing or Leaving the Prosthesis after Regenerative Surgery in Peri-Implant Defects: Retrospective Study: 32 Clinical Cases with 2 to 8 Years of Follow-Up

Víctor Astolfi, Alberto Gómez-Menchero, José Vicente Ríos-Santos, Pedro Bullón, Francisco Galeote, Blanca Ríos-Carrasco, Beatriz Bullón de la Fuente and Mariano Herrero-Climent
Additional contact information
Víctor Astolfi: Department of Periodontics and Dental Implants, Universidad de Sevilla, 41009 Seville, Spain
Alberto Gómez-Menchero: Department of Periodontics and Dental Implants, Universidad de Sevilla, 41009 Seville, Spain
José Vicente Ríos-Santos: Department of Periodontics and Dental Implants, Universidad de Sevilla, 41009 Seville, Spain
Pedro Bullón: Department of Periodontics and Dental Implants, Universidad de Sevilla, 41009 Seville, Spain
Francisco Galeote: Department of Periodontics and Dental Implants, Universidad de Sevilla, 41009 Seville, Spain
Blanca Ríos-Carrasco: Department of Periodontics and Dental Implants, Universidad de Sevilla, 41009 Seville, Spain
Beatriz Bullón de la Fuente: Department of Periodontics and Dental Implants, Universidad de Sevilla, 41009 Seville, Spain
Mariano Herrero-Climent: Porto Dental Institute, 4150-518 Porto, Portugal

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 2, 1-16

Abstract: Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the influence of removing or not removing a prosthesis after regenerative surgery on peri-implant defects. Methods: Two different groups were compared (Group 1: removing the prosthesis; Group 2: maintaining the prosthesis), analyzing radiographic bone filling (n = 32 implants) after regenerative treatment in periapical radiographs. The peri-implant defects were measured before and after regenerative treatment using Bio-Oss ® (Geistlich Pharma, Wohhusen, Switzerland) and a reabsorbable collagen membrane (Jason ® , Botis, Berlin, Germany), the healing period was two years after peri-implant regenerative surgery. Statistical analysis was performed, and a Chi square test was carried out. To determine the groups that made the difference, corrected standardized Haberman residuals were used, and previously a normality test had been applied; therefore, an ANOVA or Mann–Whitney U test was used for the crossover with the non-normal variables in Group 1 and Group 2. Results: The results obtained suggest that a regenerative procedure with xenograft, resorbable membrane, and detoxifying the implant surface with hydrogen peroxide form a reliable technique to achieve medium-term results, obtaining an average bone gain at a radiographic level of 2.84 mm (±1.78 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was not removed after peri-implant bone regenerative therapy and 2.18 mm (±1.41 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was removed during the healing period. Conclusions: There are no statistically significant differences in the response to treatment when removing or keeping the prosthesis after regenerative surgery in peri-implant defects.

Keywords: peri-implantitis; regenerative surgery; peri-implant defects (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/645/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/645/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:645-:d:479930

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().