Fibrinogen-Induced Regeneration Sealing Technique (F.I.R.S.T.): A Retrospective Clinical Study on 105 Implants with a 3-7-Year Follow-Up.

Márton Kivovics, Vincenzo Foti, Yaniv Mayer, Eitan Mijiritsky
Author Information
  1. Márton Kivovics: Department of Public Dental Health, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi utca 40, 1088 Budapest, Hungary. ORCID
  2. Vincenzo Foti: Private Practice in Periodontology and Implantology, 16129 Genova, Italy.
  3. Yaniv Mayer: Department of Periodontology, School of Graduate Dentistry, Rambam Health Care Campus (RHCC), HaAliya HaShniya St. 8, Haifa 3109601, Israel. ORCID
  4. Eitan Mijiritsky: Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6 Weizmann Street, Tel-Aviv 6423906, Israel. ORCID

Abstract

The primary aim of this retrospective clinical study was to assess the success and bone gain achieved by using the Fibrinogen-Induced Regeneration Sealing Technique (F.I.R.S.T.) in different indications. In this single-center retrospective clinical study, F.I.R.S.T. was performed in the following indications: alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), immediate implant placement, and horizontal and vertical guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous dental implant placement. F.I.R.S.T. is a modified approach to GBR characterized by the application of a porcine cortical lamina, as a long-term resorbable bone barrier to cover the bone defect, and a fibrin sealant for easy adaptation of the xenogenic bone graft material and the fixation of the collagenic bone barrier. Patients with uncontrolled systemic diseases, medications, or diseases that may alter bone metabolism; local inflammation; poor oral hygiene; and heavy smoking were excluded from this study. Horizontal and vertical bone gain (HBG and VBG) were measured by comparing postoperative and preoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) reconstructions. Patients were recalled for controls and oral hygiene treatment every 6 months. Altogether, 62 patients (27 male, 35 female, age 63.73 ± 12.95 years) were included in this study, and 105 implants were placed. Six implants failed during the 50.67 ± 22.18-month-long follow-up. Cumulative implant survival throughout the groups was 94.29 %. In the immediate implant group, HBG was 0.86 mm (range: -0.75-8.19 mm) at the 2 mm subcrestal level, while VBG was 0.87 ± 1.21 mm. In the ARP group, HBG was 0.51 mm (range: -0.29-3.90 mm) at the 2 mm subcrestal level, while VBG was -0.16 mm (range: -0.52-0.92 mm). In the horizontal GBR group, HBG was 2.91 mm (range: 1.24-8.10 mm) at the 2 mm subcrestal level. In the vertical GBR group, VBG was 4.15 mm (range: 3.00-10.41 mm). F.I.R.S.T. can be utilized successfully for bone augmentation. The vertical and horizontal bone gains achieved through F.I.R.S.T. allow for implant placement with adequate bone width on both the vestibular and oral aspects of the implant.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 Sep/Oct;40(5):685-692 [PMID: 32925998]
  2. Periodontol 2000. 2023 Jun;92(1):220-234 [PMID: 36683018]
  3. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Oct;15(5):707-13 [PMID: 22082037]
  4. J Periodontol. 2018 Jun;89 Suppl 1:S313-S318 [PMID: 29926955]
  5. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007 Feb;18(2):225-35 [PMID: 17323153]
  6. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Jul-Aug;26(4):866-72 [PMID: 21841997]
  7. J Orthop Sci. 2001;6(6):571-5 [PMID: 11793181]
  8. Aust Dent J. 1969 Aug;14(4):241-4 [PMID: 5259350]
  9. Periodontol 2000. 2023 Oct;93(1):9-25 [PMID: 38194351]
  10. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 May/Jun;33(3):622-635 [PMID: 29763500]
  11. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008 Dec;10(4):264-70 [PMID: 18241216]
  12. Minerva Stomatol. 2016 Oct;65(5):257-68 [PMID: 27580650]
  13. Materials (Basel). 2020 Feb 09;13(3): [PMID: 32050433]
  14. J Prosthodont. 2013 Oct;22(7):575-580 [PMID: 23551872]
  15. Materials (Basel). 2017 Sep 08;10(9): [PMID: 28885576]
  16. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Feb;19(1):46-55 [PMID: 27238406]
  17. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Mar;34(3):157-176 [PMID: 36626118]
  18. J Funct Biomater. 2022 Aug 18;13(3): [PMID: 35997459]
  19. J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Jun;46 Suppl 21:319-339 [PMID: 30667522]
  20. Periodontol 2000. 2023 Oct;93(1):56-76 [PMID: 37855164]
  21. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2019 Sep 05;10(3):e5 [PMID: 31620267]
  22. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Nov 22;22(22): [PMID: 34830451]
  23. J Clin Periodontol. 2015 Jul;42(7):666-77 [PMID: 26073267]
  24. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 Mar/Apr;34(2):471-480 [PMID: 30883623]
  25. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Feb;46(2):250-260 [PMID: 27839628]
  26. Implant Dent. 2019 Apr;28(2):100-102 [PMID: 30762625]
  27. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997 Apr;17(2):170-81 [PMID: 9497711]
  28. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):e105-e115 [PMID: 25727443]
  29. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Feb 23;32(5):1001–1017 [PMID: 28231347]
  30. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000 Aug;20(4):390-7 [PMID: 11203579]
  31. Eur Cell Mater. 2004 Sep 13;8:1-10; discussion 10-1 [PMID: 15494929]
  32. Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Jul;24(7):2321-2329 [PMID: 31646394]
  33. Dent Mater J. 2016 Dec 1;35(6):900-907 [PMID: 27680032]
  34. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 Jul-Aug;33(4):491-7 [PMID: 23820709]
  35. BMC Oral Health. 2022 Oct 19;22(1):449 [PMID: 36261829]
  36. J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Jun;32(6):645-52 [PMID: 15882225]
  37. Periodontol 2000. 2023 Oct;93(1):107-128 [PMID: 37529966]
  38. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Oct;78(10):e2-e5 [PMID: 33008551]
  39. Ann Anat. 2020 Sep;231:151524 [PMID: 32376298]
  40. J Periodontol. 2018 Jun;89 Suppl 1:S304-S312 [PMID: 29926953]
  41. Braz Dent J. 2010;21(6):482-90 [PMID: 21271037]
  42. Int J Esthet Dent. 2020;15(4):454-473 [PMID: 33089260]
  43. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2016 Apr-Jun;30(2 Suppl 1):81-5 [PMID: 27469553]
  44. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3 Suppl 1):97-100 [PMID: 26511187]
  45. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Nov 29;23(23): [PMID: 36499315]
  46. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017 Jul 12;12:4937-4961 [PMID: 28761338]
  47. Materials (Basel). 2018 Aug 17;11(8): [PMID: 30126102]
  48. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Aug;23(4):313-23 [PMID: 12956475]
  49. Stem Cells. 2016 Aug;34(8):2079-89 [PMID: 27331788]
  50. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Oct;14(5):746-58 [PMID: 20977615]
  51. J Clin Periodontol. 2013 Jul;40(7):721-7 [PMID: 23647007]
  52. Int J Nanomedicine. 2013;8:3641-62 [PMID: 24106425]
  53. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020 Sep 1;25(5):e565-e575 [PMID: 32683381]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0bonemmimplantFIRSTverticalGBRrange:studyplacementhorizontalHBGVBGgroup-02ARPimmediateoral±0subcrestallevelaugmentationretrospectiveclinicalgainachievedFibrinogen-InducedRegenerationSealingTechniquealveolarridgepreservationguidedregenerationcorticallaminabarrierfibrinsealantgraftPatientsdiseaseshygieneconebeamcomputedtomographyCBCT105implants1primaryaimassesssuccessusingdifferentindicationssingle-centerperformedfollowingindications:simultaneousdentalmodifiedapproachcharacterizedapplicationporcinelong-termresorbablecoverdefecteasyadaptationxenogenicmaterialfixationcollagenicuncontrolledsystemicmedicationsmayaltermetabolismlocalinflammationpoorheavysmokingexcludedHorizontalmeasuredcomparingpostoperativepreoperativereconstructionsrecalledcontrolstreatmentevery6monthsAltogether62patients27male35femaleage63731295yearsincludedplacedSixfailed50672218-month-longfollow-upCumulativesurvivalthroughoutgroups9429%8675-81987215129-3901652-0929124-810415300-1041canutilizedsuccessfullygainsallowadequatewidthvestibularaspects:RetrospectiveClinicalStudyImplants3-7-YearFollow-Upxenograft

Similar Articles

Cited By