CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY FEATURES IN PATIENTS WITH MANDIBULAR MOLAR LOSS INDICATED FOR DENTAL IMPLANT PLACEMENT COMBINED WITH SOFT TISSUE AUGMENTATION USING TENT-POLE AND XENOGRAFT TECHNIQUES
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Mandibular molar loss is often accompanied by hard- and soft-tissue resorption, which may adversely affect the long-term outcomes of dental implant treatment. Increasing peri-implant soft-tissue volume may contribute to the long-term stability of implant therapy. Objectives: To describe the clinical characteristics and cone-beam computed tomography findings in patients with mandibular molar loss who were indicated for dental implant placement combined with soft-tissue augmentation using the tent-pole technique or xenogeneic soft-tissue grafting at Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on 30 patients with 40 mandibular molar edentulous sites indicated for dental implant placement combined with soft-tissue augmentation using either the tent-pole technique or xenogeneic grafting at Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital from March 2024 to March 2026. Results: In the study sample, patients aged 18–39 years accounted for 86.7%. The main cause of tooth loss was dental caries and complications of pulpal disease, accounting for 87.5%. Most missing teeth were mandibular first molars, including tooth 36 in 37.5% and tooth 46 in 40.0% of the sites. The mean soft-tissue height ranged from 2.04 to 2.90 mm. On cone-beam computed tomography, the mean bone height was greater than 14.37 mm, and the mean buccolingual ridge width was greater than 6.86 mm. Bone density was predominantly classified as D3 (52.5%) and D2 (22.5%). Conclusion: In the study sample, mandibular first molar loss was more common than mandibular second molar loss, with dental caries and pulpal disease being the main causes. D2 and D3 bone densities were common, and the bone dimensions and soft-tissue height were suitable for dental implant placement combined with either the tent-pole technique or xenogeneic soft-tissue grafting.
Keywords
Dental implant, xenogeneic soft-tissue grafting, tent-pole technique
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
2. Garaicoa-Pazmino C., Mendonça G., Ou A., et al. Impact of mucosal phenotype on marginal bone levels around tissue level implants: A prospective controlled trial. Journal of Periodontology. 2021.92(6), 771-783, https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.20-0458.
3. Puisys A. and Linkevicius T. The influence of mucosal tissue thickening on crestal bone stability around bone-level implants: A prospective controlled clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2015. 26(2), 123-129, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12301.
4. Linkevicius T., Puisys A., Linkevicius R., and Alkimavicius J. Influence of subcrestal implant placement or use of 2 mm healing abutment to stabilise crestal bone in thin tissue patients. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2018. 29(S17), 311-311, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.196_13358.
5. Van Eekeren P., van Elsas P., Tahmaseb A., and Wismeijer D. The influence of initial mucosal thickness on crestal bone change in similar macrogeometrical implants: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2017. 28(2), 214-218, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12784.
6. Thoma D.S., Strauss F.J., Mancini L., et al. Minimal invasiveness in soft tissue augmentation at dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-reported outcome measures. Periodontology 2000. 2023.91(1), 182-198, https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12465.
7. Vallecillo C., Toledano-Osorio M., Vallecillo-Rivas M., et al. Collagen matrix vs. autogenous connective tissue graft for soft tissue augmentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Polymers. 2021.13(11), 1810, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13111810.
8. Broers D.L.M., Dubois L., de Lange J., et al. Reasons for tooth removal in adults: A systematic review. International Dental Journal. 2022. 72(1), 52-57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2021.01.011.
9. Trần Cao Bính, Trịnh Đình Hải và cộng sự. Thực trạng bệnh răng miệng và một số yếu tố liên quan: Kết quả Điều tra Sức khỏe Răng miệng Toàn quốc. Nhà xuất bản Y học, Hà Nội. 2019.
10. Bressan E., Guazzo R., Tomasi C., et al. Influence of soft tissue thickness on marginal bone level around dental implants: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2023. 34(5), 405-415, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14032.
11. Bùi Hoàng Minh Đức, Bùi Cúc, Bùi Hoàng Minh Phước, Trần Quốc Ninh, Hoàng Minh Tú và cộng sự. Đánh giá kết quả cấy ghép implant với kỹ thuật dựng mô mềm vùng răng cối lớn sử dụng hỗn hợp melatonin và hyaluronic acid. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam. 2025. 550(3), 387-391, https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v550i3.14412.