View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Transmucosal Dental Implant Placement with Bone Augmentation Shows No Difference in Bone Levels or Soft Tissue Indices from Submerged Dental Implant Placement with Bone Augmentation
Clinical Question In patients receiving dental implant placement with lateral bone augmentation, does a transmucosal dental implant show a significant difference in bone levels and soft tissue indicators in comparison to a submerged dental implant?
Clinical Bottom Line In patients receiving dental implants in conjunction with lateral bone augmentation, submerged dental implant placement may offer no benefit over non-submerged placement as measured by bone level and soft tissue indicators.
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 22697581Cordaro/201352 dental implants with bone augmentation: 27 submerged, 25 non-submergedRandomized Controlled Trial
Key resultsThe study shows no significant difference between the two groups after 2 years of follow-up. Bone resorption was found in both groups (0.37 ± 0.49 mm in the submerged group and 0.54 ± 0.76 in the non-submerged group; P < 0.001). Probing depths (2.5 vs. 2.4 mm), bleeding on probing (BOP-positive sites: 8.8% vs. 11.5%) and clinical attachment loss (2.8 vs. 2.4 mm) were not significantly different between the submerged and the non-submerged groups, respectively.
Evidence Search submerged[All Fields] AND non[All Fields] AND submerged[All Fields] AND ("dental implants"[MeSH Terms] OR ("dental"[All Fields] AND "implants"[All Fields]) OR "dental implants"[All Fields] OR ("dental"[All Fields] AND "implant"[All Fields]) OR "dental implant"[All Fields]) AND ("bone and bones"[MeSH Terms] OR ("bone"[All Fields] AND "bones"[All Fields]) OR "bone and bones"[All Fields] OR "bone"[All Fields]) AND augmentation[All Fields]
Comments on
The Evidence
Validity: This article directly compared the two groups as part of a secondary analysis of an ongoing larger clinical trial. The study was conducted in 12 centers, and the sample was randomly distributed between submerged and non-submerged placement. The study used a retrospective assessment of patients completing 2 years of evaluation of the implant in aesthetic (anterior) area, limiting definitive conclusions that can be be drawn from this comparative report. Perspective: It is commonly thought that submerged dental implant placement is preferred if lateral bone augmentation is required in conjunction with implant placement. Based on this retrospective comparative study, both options (submerged and non-submerged) appear to have similar clinical outcomes.
Applicability This information offers the dentist some guidance as to whether or not to submerge dental implants placed in an aesthetic (anterior) area in conjunction with lateral bone augmentation.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Oral Surgery) (Periodontics)
Keywords Implant, submerged implant, non-submerged implant, bone augmentation, one-stage implant, two-stage implant
ID# 2737
Date of submission: 06/24/2014spacer
E-mail a.alblaihess@hotmail.com
Author Abdulaziz A. Alblaihess
Co-author(s) Mohamad K. Alhadlaq, Shreya Ruxmohan
Co-author(s) e-mail kakao86@msn.com, ruxmohan@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Faculty mentor/Co-author Thomas Oates, DMD, PhD
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail OATES@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
post a comment
None available

Return to Found CATs list