Use of buccal fat pad to repair post-extraction peri-implant bone defects in the posterior maxillaa preliminary prospective study

  1. María Peñarrocha Diago 1
  2. Rocío Alonso González 1
  3. Amparo Aloy Prósper 1
  4. David Peñarrocha Oltra 1
  5. Fabio Camacho Alonso 2
  6. Miguel Peñarrocha Diago 1
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

  2. 2 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Revista:
Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed. inglesa

ISSN: 1698-6946

Año de publicación: 2015

Volumen: 20

Número: 6

Páginas: 8

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.4317/MEDORAL.20212 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed. inglesa

Resumen

Background: 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. Material and Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: Within the limits of this preliminary study, the use of the buccal fat pad as a coating material for bone grafting in peri-implant bone defects placed in the upper posterior maxilla was a well-tolerated technique by patients; high implant success rate was achieved with a minimal peri-implant marginal bone loss at 12 months of prosthetic loading.