Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 883  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 699-705  

Evaluation of bone regeneration around implants with and without flap elevation


1 Department of Periodontics, PHC, Khusrupur, India
2 Department of Periodontics, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgey, Awadh Dental College and Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
4 Department of Periodontics, Awadh Dental College and Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
5 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Awadh Dental College and Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
6 Department of Dentistry, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India

Date of Submission21-Oct-2020
Date of Decision07-Nov-2020
Date of Acceptance24-Nov-2020
Date of Web Publication05-Jun-2021

Correspondence Address:
Sanjay Kumar Singh
MDS Senior Resident Department of Dentistry, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna (Bihar)
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_691_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: The aim of this study is to clinically evaluate and compare the clinical success and the relative bone healing of the implants which are placed using a flapless procedure and compare it to those placed by the conventional flap technique. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted with ten patients that were randomly divided into two groups. Group A included patients with immediately placed implants after extraction with flap elevation. Group B included patients with immediately placed implants after extraction without any flap elevation. The clinical parameters recorded were Plaque index, Modified Gingival Index, Early Wound Healing Index, Buser's criteria, Distance between implant shoulder and the crestal bone (DIB), and Radiographic Examination in a standardized manner to evaluate changes for the DIB values. Results: There was an improvement in Plaque Score from baseline to 1 month and baseline to abutment placement (6 months), which was statistically significant, but the plaque score from 3 months to abutment placement (6 months) was statistically nonsignificant in both the group. There was an increase in modified gingival score from baseline to 3 months, baseline to abutment placement (6 months), and 3 months to abutment placement (6 months), which was statistically significant in both the groups. The DIB scores in Group A recorded at baseline to 6 months were 2.80 ± 0.57 and 1.90 ± 0.42, respectively, showing a mean difference of −0.90 and P = 0.001 in comparison. Whereas, the DIB scores in Group B at baseline to 6 months were 3.20 ± 0.57 and 2.50 ± 0.50, respectively, showing a mean difference of −0.70 and P = 0.001 in comparison. The DIC scores in Group A at baseline to 6 months were 1.60 ± 0.54 and 0.00 ± 0.00, respectively, showing a mean difference of −1.60 and P = 0.003 in comparison, Whereas the DIC scores in Group B at baseline to 6 months were 1.40 ± 0.54 and 0.00 ± 0.00, respectively, showing a mean difference of −1.40 and P = 0.005 in comparison. Conclusion: Implants placed in fresh extraction sockets with and without mucoperiosteal flap elevation can be successfully done with augmentation procedures. Short-term survival rates and clinical outcomes of both groups were similar and appeared to be predictable treatment modalities.

Keywords: Bone regeneration, flapless, implant


How to cite this article:
Sinha S, Kumar S, Sonoo PR, Kumar U, Siddhartha R, Singh SK. Evaluation of bone regeneration around implants with and without flap elevation. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S1:699-705

How to cite this URL:
Sinha S, Kumar S, Sonoo PR, Kumar U, Siddhartha R, Singh SK. Evaluation of bone regeneration around implants with and without flap elevation. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 29];13, Suppl S1:699-705. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/5/699/317626




   Introduction Top


The First Oral dental implant was done by Branemark et al. in 1965.[1],[2] Nearly after three decades, in 1985, Branemark, Leckholm, and Zarb revolutionized the field of implantology by publishing the implant designs, surgical protocol, and clinical results.[3]

In the original protocol, Adell and Lekholm[3] suggested a 6–12 months wait for healing of the extraction site before implant placement to give time and allow for the complete ossification of the socket. However, this protocol has been challenged within the past two decades by reducing the time between tooth extraction and implant placement. The modified protocol is known as immediate implants. Immediate implants were first clinically described by Schulte.[4]

Brånemark, in the late 1970s, approved the use of extensive flaps to gain access to the surgical field during the implant procedure.[5] In cases with poor bone quantity, the reflection of a mucoperiosteal flap can enable implant settlement by permitting the surgeon to visually calculate bone extent and morphology at the site. Furthermore, this may reduce the risk of the occurrence of bone fenestrations and dehiscences. A study in the year 1970 established a relationship between flap reflection and gingival recession, as well as bone resorption around normal teeth.[5] In addition, it has been reported that the postsurgical tissue loss from flap reflection, suggesting that the use of flap surgery for implant procedure may undesirably influence aesthetics results, particularly in the frontal maxilla. Over 30 years, flap strategies for implant operation have been modified, and more lately, the notion of implant placement without elevation of flap and exposure of the bony tissues was introduced. Flapless surgery had certain advantages, including (1) Decrease of hitches at the patient level, i.e., swelling and pain, (2) Decrease in intraoperative hemorrhage, (3) Decrease of surgical time and need for suturing, (4) Conservation of hard and soft tissues, and (5) Preservation of blood supply. Despite these compensations, the flapless method also has several potential inadequacies. These include (1) The incapability of the surgeon to envisage anatomical benchmarks and important structures, (2) The probability for thermal injury to the bone due to partial external irrigation during osteotomy with guided surgery, (3) Failure to perfectly see the vertical terminus of the implant placement, (4) Reduced access to the bony outlines for alveoloplasty, (5) Difficulties to perform an internal sinus lift with an alleviated template, and (6) Inability to operate the circumferential soft tissues to ensure the perfect dimensions of keratinized mucosa around the implant.[6],[7],[8]

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance and bone healing of implants placed in fresh extraction sockets with a flapless procedure compared to those placed using flap elevation.


   Materials and Methods Top


A study was conducted with an informed consent which included a total of 10 patients, met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study protocol and divided in to 2 groups. Group-A included patients in whom implants were placed immediately after extraction with flap elevation. (Flap Elevation Group). Group-B included patients in whom implants were placed immediately after extraction without flap elevation (Flapless Group). A total of 10 implants were placed. Prior to the commencement of implant surgery a detailed history of the patients was carefully recorded. The inclusion criteria for the study were as follows age group was >20 years; Adequate patient's availability to meet the follow-up schedule; Healthy patient: American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II;[9] Patients with proper oral hygiene (checked by modified gingival index and modified plaque index) Adequate patient compliance; Patients neurologically and hemodynamically stable enough to undergo a lengthy surgical procedure; tooth/teeth indicated for extraction due to root fractures, endodontic failures, caries, periodontally compromised condition; Only Single Rooted Anterior teeth and premolars were included in the study; site indicated for extraction had ≥3 mm of bone beyond the root apex. The exclusion criteria consisted of patients with Uncontrolled Diabetes; Blood Dyscrasias; Patient with Psychiatric disorders; Alcoholic, Drug Abusers, and heavy smokers; Insufficient availability of bone between the apex of the tooth to be extracted and any limiting vital structure (inferior alveolar nerve, mental foramen, maxillary sinus) at the proposed site of implant placement; patient not willing to cooperate for the study.

Presurgical protocol

After an early investigation and treatment discussion, all the nominated patients will be given thorough instructions about plaque control procedures and will be then exposed to full mouth scaling and root planning. The patients who all will meet the inclusion criteria will be recalled after a week to record the preoperative parameters. A detailed case history will be taken, and diagnostic casts will be made. A cone-beam computed tomography will be taken and intra oral periapical radiographs will be taken of the site with a standardized grid.

Surgical procedure

Each case was accurately evaluated with periapical radiographs and computerized tomography where necessary. Subsequent to these analyses, all the patients undertook scaling, root planning, and oral hygiene directives, and any periodontal treatment essential to provide an oral atmosphere more promising to wound healing. Surgical procedure was performed under local anesthesia and in aseptic conditions all the implants used for the study were placed by the same surgeon. The sites were assigned either to the control or test group according to randomization list. The sites in the Group A (Flap Elevation group) received intrasulcular and vertical incisions to raise a mucoperiosteal flap that extended over the mucogingival junction. Subsequently, the implant sites were prepared using the standardized sequence of drills, and the implants were placed into the bone site at the planned depth [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. All the immediate implants in the Group A (Flap Elevation group) were grafted with a bioactive glass (PerioglasTM) bone graft material and covered with Resorbable collagen membrane (HealiguideTM). Primary soft tissue closure will be achieved on implants.
Figure 1: Radiograph showing implant placement using flap elevation technique at baseline

Click here to view
Figure 2: Radiograph showing bone level of implant placed using flap elevation technique at 6 month

Click here to view


The sites in the Group B (Flapless group) did not receive any incision or flap elevation. The implant sites were prepared with standard drills using the bony walls as a guide. Thereafter, all the sites were grafted by filling the residual alveolus with bioactive glass (PerioglasTM) bone graft material and subsequently followed by the implants into the prepared sites [Figure 3]. The surgical site was protected at the level of gingival wound with a Resorbable collagen membrane (HealiguideTM). A follow-up was done after 6 months of the procedure and the clinical parameters were measured so as to compare the results [Figure 4].
Figure 3: Radiograph showing implant placement using flapless technique at baseline

Click here to view
Figure 4: Radiograph showing bone level of implant placed using flapless technique at 6 month

Click here to view


On completion after 5 months, the surgical cover screws were removed, and healing abutments were placed. The flaps were then adapted back to positions and sutured to the healing abutments. The implant was said to be a success when there was absence of any mobility and it fulfilled the criteria of Buser et al.[10] Implant was considered to be a failed implant if there was presence of mobility or bone less greater than one-third of entire length though still not mobile.


   Results Top


The intergroup comparison between Group A and Group B for plaque index at baseline, 3 months and at time of abutment placement (6 months) had P = 0.766, 0.763 and 0.686 respectively which was >0.05 and hence were statistically insignificant [Table 1].
Table 1: Inter group comparison of all of the parameters of Group A and Group B (independent t-test)

Click here to view


The intergroup comparison between Group A and Group B for modified gingival index at baseline, 3 months and at time of abutment placement had P = 0.727, 0.698, and 0.656, respectively, which was >0.05 and hence were statistically insignificant [Table 1].

The Intergroup comparison between Group A and Group B for early wound healing index at 1 week, 2 weeks and 4 weeks had P = 0.347, 0.608 and 0.545, respectively, which was <0.05 and hence were statistically insignificant [Table 1].

The DIB scores in Group A recorded at baseline to 6 months were 2.80 ± 0.57 and 1.90 ± 0.42, respectively, showing a mean difference of −0.90 and P = 0.001 in comparison. Hence, a gradual decrease in DIB is seen from baseline to 6 months. Also as P ≤ 0.05, it was statistically significant [Table 2]. The DIB scores in Group B at baseline to 6 months were 3.20 ± 0.57 and 2.50 ± 0.50, respectively, showing a mean difference of −0.70 and P = 0.001 in comparison. Hence, a gradual decrease in DIB is seen from baseline to 6 months [Table 3]. On comparison, as P ≤ 0.05, it was statistically significant. The Intergroup comparison of Group A and Group B for DIB scores at baseline and at time of abutment placement (6 months) had P = 0.299 and 0.074, respectively, which was >0.05 and hence was statistically insignificant [Table 1].
Table 2: Intra group comparison of all of the parameters of Group A (flap elevation Group) (paired t-test)

Click here to view
Table 3: Intra group comparison of all of the parameters of Group B (flapless Group) (paired t-test)

Click here to view


The DIC scores in Group A at baseline to 6 months were 1.60 ± 0.54 and 0.00 ± 0.00, respectively, showing a mean difference of −1.60 and P = 0.003 in comparison. Hence, a gradual decrease in DIC is seen from baseline to 6 months. Also as P = <0.05, it was statistically significant [Table 2]. The DIC scores in Group B at baseline to 6 months were 1.40 ± 0.54 and 0.00 ± 0.00, respectively, showing a mean difference of −1.40 and P = 0.005 in comparison. Therefore, a gradual decrease in DIC is seen from baseline to 6 months. Also, as P ≤ 0.05, it was statistically significant [Table 3]. The Intergroup comparison of Group A and Group B for DIC scores at baseline had P = 0.580, which was >0.05 and hence was statistically insignificant. For the intergroup comparison of Group A and Group B for DIC scores at abutment placement (6 months). P value could not be calculated because the standard deviation of both the groups was 0 and had a similar mean as well [Table 1].

Buser's Criteria were recorded at the baseline, 3 months, and at the time of abutment placement and all showed negative result.


   Discussion Top


Implant placement without mucoperiosteal flap elevation has not only been recognized as a successful procedure but also as a procedure that reduces postoperative swelling and patient discomfort.[9] Soft-tissue reflection to allow implant placement is generally associated with some degree of bone resorption. This phenomenon may be caused by the micro-architecture of the crestal bone, which is not well vascularized. When soft tissues are elevated, the blood supply to the bone is interrupted, predisposing the crestal (cortical) bone to resorption. In fact, it has been clearly demonstrated that mucoperiosteal flap elevation can stimulate a wound healing process along with the angiogenesis of the vascular plexus and the resorption of the alveolar bone.[10],[11]

Gomez-Roman[12] placed implants using two types of incisions, i.e., wide flap incision and limited flap incision and found that the interproximal bone loss is less in limited flap incision as there is denudation of the periosteum from the bone when the flap is elevated Sunitha et al.[13] also conducted a study in which implants are placed using flap design in which the interproximal soft tissues are preserved and it showed that there is more bone loss in the conventional flap design as compared to the minimal invasive flap design. Job et al.[14] did a similar study, in which implants were placed using flapless surgery and conventional flap surgery and found that significant bone loss occurs in conventional flap procedure while bone level remains stable in flapless procedure over a period of 3 months. They concluded that in a flapless technique, the intact blood supply from soft tissue facilitates maintenance of nutrition, which is a critical factor in preventing initial bone loss around the implant, while during the flap elevation in conventional flap procedure; the blood supply was disrupted from the bone resulting in lack of nutrition and some amount of initial bone resorption.

Postsurgical soft-tissue loss can result from flap reflection, implying that flap surgery for implant placement may negatively influence the esthetic outcomes. Flapless implant placement can be performed by minimum incision as in a study conducted by Jeong et al.[15] In the flapless approach, surgical trauma is minimal; hence, related postoperative pain and discomfort are greatly minimized. The study by Fortin et al.[16] showed that pain decreased faster with the flapless procedure and the number of patients who felt no pain was higher with the same procedure. Furthermore, the intact periosteum maintains a better blood supply reducing the likelihood of early bone resorption.

Jeong et al.[17] compared the flapless and flap groups and examined the effect of the surgical approach on crestal bone level and osseointegration and found that the mean peri-implant bone height was greater at the flapless sites compared to the sites with flaps. Barros et al.[18] and Fickl et al.[19] observed a loss of bone height at least two times more pronounced in the group where immediate implants were installed after the elevation of mucoperiosteal flap than in the group without flap elevation.

Flapless implantation has several advantages such as decreased surgical time, maintenance of both soft and hard tissues, decreased postoperative bleeding, faster recovery, and patient's comfort, which was also observed and documented in a study by Becker et al.[20]


   Conclusion Top


Implants placed in fresh extraction sockets with and without mucoperiosteal flap elevation can be successfully done with augmentation procedures. The findings though being statistically insignificant, suggested more favorable outcomes for the flapless group. Short-term survival rates and clinical outcomes of both groups were similar and appeared to be predictable treatment modalities.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Palmer RM, Palmer PJ, Smith BJ. A 5-year prospective study of Astra single tooth implants. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2000;11:179–82  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Chang M, Wennström JL, Odman P, Andersson B. Implant supported single-tooth replacements compared to contralateral natural teeth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:185-94.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Schulte W. The intraosseous Al2O3 (Frialit) Tuebingen implant. Developmental status after eight years (II). Quintessence Int 1984;15:19-35.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Brodala N. Flapless surgery and its effect on dental implant outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:118-25.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Wennström JL, Bengazi F, Lekholm U. The influence of the masticatory mucosa on the peri-implant soft tissue condition. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:1-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
van Steenberghe D. Periodontal aspects of osseointegrated oral implants modum Brånemark. Dent Clin North Am 1988;32:355-70.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:237-59.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Campelo LD, Camara JR. Flapless implant surgery: A 10-year clinical retrospective analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:271-6.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Buser D, Chappuis V, Kuchler U, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Buser R, et al. Long-term Stability of Early Implant Placement with Contour Augmentation. J Dent Res. 2013;92:176S–182S.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Nobuto T, Yanagihara K, Teranishi Y, Minamibayashi S, Imai H, Yamaoka A. Periosteal microvasculature in the dog alveolar process. J Periodontol 1989;60:709-15.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Gomez-Roman G. Influence of flap design on peri-implant interproximal crestal bone loss around single-tooth implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:61-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Sunitha RV, Ramakrishnan T, Kumar S, Emmadi P. Soft tissue preservation and crestal bone loss around single-tooth implants. J Oral Implantol 2008;34:223-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Job S, Bhat V, Naidu EM. In vivo evaluation of crestal bone heights following implant placement with 'flapless' and 'with-flap' techniques in sites of immediately loaded implants. Indian J Dent Res 2008;19:320-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
15.
Jeong SM, Choi BH, Kim J, Xuan F, Lee DH, Mo DY. A 1-year prospective clinical study of soft tissue conditions and marginal bone changes around dental implants after flapless implant surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111:41–6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Fortin T, Bosson JL, Isidori M, Blanchet E. Effect of flapless surgery on pain experienced in implant placement using an image-guided system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(2):298-304.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Jeong SM, Choi BH, Li J, Kim HS, Ko CY, Jung JH, et al. Flapless implant surgery: an experimental study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:24-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Barros RR, Novaes AB, Papalexiou V. Buccal bone remodeling after immediate implantation with a flap or flapless approach: A pilot study in dogs. Titanium 2009;1:45-51.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Fickl S, Zuhr O, Wachtel H, Bolz W, Huerzeler M. Tissue alterations after tooth extraction with and without surgical trauma: A volumetric study in the beagle dog. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:356-63.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Becker W, Goldstein M, Becker BE, Sennerby L. Minimally invasive flapless implant surgery: A prospective multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;71:S21-7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed152    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded10    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal