Anterior prosthetic temporization and bone regeneration: an 8-year retrospective analysis.

Authors

Zoé Gaudimier, Samy Tawfik, Elise Amblard, Louise Gosselin-Rouselle, Rémi Durand, Claudine Wulfman, Yohann Flottes

Published in

Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery. Pages 102978. Sep 05, 2026. Epub Sep 05, 2026.

Abstract

To retrospectively assess the effect of interim prostheses on bone healing, postoperative complications, and graft success in sites undergoing bone regeneration.
This monocentric retrospective study included 100 patients who underwent 138 bone regeneration procedures between 2018 and 2025. Patients were divided into a control group without interim prostheses (n = 49) and a prosthesis group (n = 51). The prosthesis group was further described according to prosthesis type in exploratory subgroup analyses. Demographics, surgical, radiographic, and clinical data were collected. Bone gain, bone loss, and postoperative complications were compared using chi-square, Fisher's exact test, ANOVA, and logistic regression, as appropriate.
A total of 138 bone regeneration procedures were analyzed. Bone augmentation and bone loss after healing were similar in patients with and without interim prostheses (p > 0.05). Postoperative complications, including hematoma, swelling, bleeding, edema, and ecchymosis, did not differ significantly between groups. Theoretical bone gain (5.5 ± 3.2 mm vs. 6.2 ± 4.1 mm; p = 0.3), actual bone gain (4.4 ± 3.2 mm vs. 4.6 ± 3.5 mm; p = 0.7), and bone loss (1.31 ± 1.27 mm vs. 1.59 ± 1.66 mm; p = 0.3) were comparable between groups. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested differences in theoretical bone gain according to prosthesis type (p = 0.026), but no robust difference was demonstrated for actual bone gain, bone loss, or complications.
In this retrospective cohort, carefully adjusted interim prostheses did not appear to adversely affect bone healing or graft success. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because of selection bias, surgical heterogeneity, and limited subgroup sample sizes. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these observations and refine clinical recommendations.

PMID:
42700925
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 06 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.