Open flap versus flapless placement of dental implants. A randomized controlled pilot trial

• Published in: Odontology Vol. 106; no. 3; pp. 340 - 348
• Main Authors: Jané-Salas, Enric, Roselló-LLabrés, Xavier, Jané-Pallí, Enric, Mishra, Siddharth, Ayuso-Montero, Raúl, López-López, José
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Tokyo Springer Japan 01.07.2018; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Analgesics; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants; Dental prosthetics; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental restorative materials; Dentistry; Female; Humans; Male; Maxillofacial surgery; Medicine; Middle Aged; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Oral hygiene; Original Article; Pain; Pain Measurement; Pilot Projects; Statistical analysis; Surgical Flaps; Surgical outcomes; Surgical techniques; Teeth; Transplants & implants; Treatment Outcome; Surgical flap; Inflammation; Pain; Dental implants; Humans
• ISSN: 1618-1247; 1618-1255
• DOI: 10.1007/s10266-018-0343-8

The aim of this study was to compare the immediate postoperative period of participants rehabilitated with dental implants placed with a conventional technique or with a minimally invasive technique, without a mucoperiosteal flap elevation (flapless). Participants who needed implant placement were divided into two groups: one group was operated using a mucoperiosteal flap elevation (G_A), and the other with a flapless surgical technique (G_B). Objective clinical parameters including oral hygiene, mouth opening, inflammation (facial perimeter), surgical time and analgesic consumption, as well as subjective parameters of pain and degree of satisfaction with the procedure, were evaluated. 48 implants were placed in 30 participants (15 participants per group). Oral hygiene index, maximum interincisal opening, pain and analgesic consumption values had a significant difference between groups favoring the flapless technique at 24 h and 7 days but at the 15 days’ follow-up the differences were only significant for oral hygiene and pain ( P  < 0.05); there were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of facial perimeter values and surgical time ( P  > 0.05). Average on the degree of satisfaction was of 2.6 (SD 0.8) for G_A and 3.6 (SD 1.02) for G_B ( P  = 0.06). One implant placed in G_A (2.0%) failed before prosthetic loading due to mobility and pain at 3 months’ follow-up. Participants operated for implant placement with flapless surgical technique go through less postoperative discomfort. Both techniques show high success rates, but to perform a flapless technique patients must be properly selected.