Use of buccal fat pad to repair post-extraction peri-implant bone defects in the posterior maxilla. A preliminary prospective study.
Peñarrocha-Diago M., Alonso-González R., Aloy-Prósper A., Peñarrocha-Oltra D., Camacho F., Peñarrocha-Diago M.
Prospective Study with a reported sample of 17, published in Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal (2015)
- Country
- Spain
- Reported sample size
- 17
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 26241450
- DOI
- 10.4317/medoral.20212
Abstract (original English)
Extensive literature exists about the use of the BFP in the treatment of oral defects but, to our knowledge, no article refers to the use of the BFP as a substitute of the membrane barriers for treatment of peri-implant bone defects. The aim was to evaluate the use of the buccal fat pad as a coating material for bone grafting in the peri-implant bone defect regeneration of immediate implants placed in the posterior maxilla. A preliminary prospective study of patients involving immediate implants in which the buccal fat pad was used as a coating material to peri-implant bone defects was carried out. The outcome measures assessed were: postoperative pain and swelling, complications related to buccal fat pad surgery, implant survival and success rates and peri-implant marginal bone loss at 12 months of prosthetic loading. Twenty-seven patients (17 women and 10 men) with a mean age of 55.3 ± 8.9 years, and a total of 43 implants were included. Two-thirds of the patients reported either no pain or only mild intensity pain and moderate inflammation, two days after surgery. Post-operative period was well tolerated by the patients and no serious complications occurred. None wound dehiscence occurred. Implant survival and success rates were 97.6% and the average marginal bone loss 1 year after loading was 0.58 ± 0.27 mm. Within the limits of this preliminary study, the use of the buccal
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.