Zur Kurzanzeige

Intraoperative Profiling of the Supracrestal Implant Complex Minimizes Peri-Implant Crestal Bone Remodeling

The Guided Bone Profiling Concept

dc.contributor.authorStoilov, Milan
dc.contributor.authorWinterhoff, Joerg
dc.contributor.authorStoilov, Lea
dc.contributor.authorTimoschenko, Anastasia
dc.contributor.authorStark, Helmut
dc.contributor.authorHeuser, Florian
dc.contributor.authorMarder, Michael
dc.contributor.authorKraus, Dominik
dc.contributor.authorEnkling, Norbert
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-24T13:09:34Z
dc.date.available2025-10-24T13:09:34Z
dc.date.issued08.03.2025
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/13591
dc.description.abstract(1) Background: Early-stage bone resorption following implant placement can significantly impact the long-term success of implants. This study evaluates whether a fully digitally planned implant position based on the E-point concept, along with guided profiling of the supracrestal complex, contributes to improved stability of peri-implant bone levels. (2) Methods: 29 implants were placed in 27 patients utilizing both immediate (Group 1; n = 19) and delayed placement (Group 2; n = 10) protocols. Implant position and emergence profile were preoperatively determined and consistently executed through guided surgery and CAD/CAM-fabricated restorations. Due to the subcrestal positioning of the implant, a corresponding bone profiler with a guide pin was used to shape the emergence profile and prevent the provisional restoration from impinging on the proximal bone. Provisional restorations were immediately placed to support the emergence profile. Bone level changes were documented radiographically over a two-year period. The first Bone-to-Implant Contact Level (∆ fBIC), change in highest approximal Bone Level (∆ haBL ), and formation of an emergence profile width (WEP) were measured. (3) Results: All implants and restorations survived after two years, no significant change in first Bone-to-Implant Contact Level (∆ fBIC = 0 ± 0.02 mm), no change in highest approximal Bone Level (∆ haBL ) of −0.23 mm ± 0.71 mm, and formation of an emergence profile width (WEP) averaging 0.18 ± 0.19 mm. (4) Conclusions: Despite the initial stress on the bone caused by bone profiling, guided implant placement and bone shaping, supported by an immediate provisional, have a positive effect on peri-implant bone stability.en
dc.format.extent19
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsNamensnennung 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectbone remodeling
dc.subjectemergence profile
dc.subjectimplant success
dc.subjectimmediate implant
dc.subjectlate implant
dc.subjectimmediate restoration
dc.subjectimmediate loading
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizin, Gesundheit
dc.titleIntraoperative Profiling of the Supracrestal Implant Complex Minimizes Peri-Implant Crestal Bone Remodeling
dc.title.alternativeThe Guided Bone Profiling Concept
dc.typeWissenschaftlicher Artikel
dc.publisher.nameMDPI
dc.publisher.locationBasel
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccess
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume2025, vol. 16
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.issueiss. 3, 93
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart1
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend19
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16030093
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitleJournal of functional biomaterials
ulbbn.pubtypeZweitveröffentlichung
dc.versionpublishedVersion
ulbbn.sponsorship.oaUnifundOA-Förderung Universität Bonn


Dateien zu dieser Ressource

Thumbnail

Das Dokument erscheint in:

Zur Kurzanzeige

Die folgenden Nutzungsbestimmungen sind mit dieser Ressource verbunden:

Namensnennung 4.0 International