We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16 (2001), No. 3     15. June 2001
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16 (2001), No. 3  (15.06.2001)

Page 355-366


Long-term Results of Implants Treated with Guided Bone Regeneration: A 5-year Prospective Study
Zitzmann, Nicola Ursula / Schärer, Peter / Marinello, Carlo Paolo
The aim of this prospective 5-year longitudinal study was to follow endosteal implants in which guided bone regeneration (GBR) was applied during implant placement. In 75 patients, defects around implants (Brånemark System) were treated with Bio-Oss and Bio-Gide (112 implants). In split-mouth patients in this group, Bio-Oss and Gore-Tex were used in the second defect site (41 implants). All 75 patients had at least 1 implant that was entirely surrounded by bone and served as the control (112 implants). After placement of the definitive prostheses (single-tooth, fixed, or removable implant prostheses), patients were recalled after 6 months and then every 12 months during a 5-year observation period. The following variables were investigated: implant survival, marginal bone level (MBL), presence of plaque, peri-implant mucosal conditions, height of keratinized mucosa (KM), and marginal soft tissue level (MSTL). The cumulative implant survival rate after 5 years varied between 93% and 97% for implants treated with or without GBR. The mean MBL after 60 months was 1.83 mm for sites treated with Bio-Oss and Bio-Gide, 2.21 mm for sites treated with Bio-Oss and Gore-Tex, and 1.73 mm for the control sites. The MBL values were found to increase significantly with time and differed significantly among the treatment groups. During the observation period, KM varied between 3.16 and 3.02 mm. A slight recession of 0.1 mm was observed, and plaque was found in 15% of all sites and was associated with inflammatory symptoms of the peri-implant mucosa. It was observed that such symptoms and recession correlated more strongly with the type of restoration than with the type of treatment. This study demonstrated that implants placed with or without GBR techniques had similar survival rates after 5 years, but that bone resorption was more pronounced in sites with GBR treatment. It was assumed that the use of GBR is indeed indicated when the initial defect size is larger than 2 mm in the vertical dimension.