Evidence Hub

Clinical and radiographical performance of implants placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration using resorbable and nonresorbable membranes after 22–24 years, a prospective, controlled clinical trial

R. Jung, Lily V. Brügger, S. Bienz, J. Hüsler, C. Hämmerle, N. Zitzmann

Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2021

105 participants · 34 citations

Abstract

Abstract Aim The aim was to evaluate the performance of implants placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) using resorbable or nonresorbable membranes compared to implants placed in pristine bone without bone regeneration after an observation period of 22–24 years. Material and Methods The patient cohort of this clinical trial was treated from 1994 to 1996. Dehiscence defects were treated with GBR by either using resorbable collagen membranes (BG) or nonresorbable ePTFE membranes (GT). Implants placed in pristine bone served as a control (CT). Clinical parameters, marginal bone levels, and technical outcomes were evaluated following restoration placement and at the present follow‐up. A 3D radiographic analysis was conducted in order to assess buccal and oral bone dimensions. Implant survival was assessed with Kaplan–Meier analysis and a frailty model (level of significance 5%). Results Out of the originally 72 patients (mean age 75.4 ± 15.70 years) with 265 implants, 39 patients with 147 implants were included in the study after a median period of 23.5 years. Implant survival was 89.3% in group BG (n = 100), 90.2% in group GT (n = 37), and 93.8% in group CT (n = 105), without significant differences (Frailty proportional hazard model p = .79). Smoking had a negative effect on survival (p = .0122). Mean vertical marginal bone levels were −2.3 ± 1.4 mm (BG, n = 59), −3.0 ± 1.5 mm (GT, n = 21), and −2.3 ± 1.6 mm (CT, n = 52). The vertical buccal bone levels were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 105 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free