Loading...
Publication
Peri-implantite: regeneração óssea guiada vs osso pristino
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPG_29212 | 342.74 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objetivo: Comparar os resultados da colocação de implantes recorrendo a técnicas de regeneração óssea guiada, com situações em que não foi feito qualquer tipo de regeneração (osso pristino). Avaliar os resultados clínicos com foco principal na prevalência de peri-implantite e no nível marginal ósseo ao longo do tempo.
Métodos: Realizou-se uma pesquisa bibliográfica, com recurso à base de dados PubMed. Esta pesquisa foi sujeita à aplicação de critérios de inclusão e exclusão. Foram apenas incluídos estudos clínicos comparando os resultados de ambas as técnicas, prevalência de peri-implantite e a taxa de perda óssea marginal.
Resultados: Foram obtidos e analisados doze estudos, comparando os níveis marginais ósseos em implantes colocados em locais submetidos a regeneração óssea guiada (ROG), com a colocação em osso pristino. Os parâmetros clínicos analisados foram descritos.
Conclusões: Poucos são os estudos atualmente disponíveis que comparam a perda óssea marginal em técnicas de regeneração óssea com as situações em que os implantes são colocados em osso pristino.
Objectives: Compare the results of the implant placement by using guided bone regeneration techniques (GBR) with cases where any type of bone regeneration was performed, ie, pristine bone. Evaluate clinical results with a main focus on the prevalene of peri-implantitis and marginal bone level over time. Methods: A bibliographic research was performed, by using the PubMed database. This research was subject to the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only clinical studies comparing the results of both techniques, the prevalence of peri-implantitis and the marginal bone loss values were included. Results: Eleven studies have been obtained and analyzed, comparing bone marginal levels in implantes submitted to guided bone regeneration (ROG), with placement in pristine bone. The clinical parameters analyzed were described. Conclusions: Currently, there are few available studies comparing marginal bone loss in bone regeneration techniques with those others in which the implants are placed in pristine bone.
Objectives: Compare the results of the implant placement by using guided bone regeneration techniques (GBR) with cases where any type of bone regeneration was performed, ie, pristine bone. Evaluate clinical results with a main focus on the prevalene of peri-implantitis and marginal bone level over time. Methods: A bibliographic research was performed, by using the PubMed database. This research was subject to the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only clinical studies comparing the results of both techniques, the prevalence of peri-implantitis and the marginal bone loss values were included. Results: Eleven studies have been obtained and analyzed, comparing bone marginal levels in implantes submitted to guided bone regeneration (ROG), with placement in pristine bone. The clinical parameters analyzed were described. Conclusions: Currently, there are few available studies comparing marginal bone loss in bone regeneration techniques with those others in which the implants are placed in pristine bone.
Description
Keywords
Peri-implantite Regeneração óssea guiada Osso pristino Osso regenerado Peri-implantitis Guided bone regeneration Pristine bone Regenerated bone