Ugo Covani

Prof. Ugo Covani


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

33Years (1994-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2008 in Journal of Periodontology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Antonio BaroneAntonio Barone
Antonio Barone
NANicolò Nicoli Aldini
Nicolò Nicoli Aldini
Milena FiniMilena Fini
Milena Fini
RGRoberto Giardino
Roberto Giardino
Jose Luis Calvo GuiradoJose Luis Calvo Guirado
Jose Luis Calvo Guirado
UCUgo Covani
Ugo Covani
Background: The preservation of bone volume immediately after tooth removal might be necessary to optimize the success of implant placement in terms of esthetics and function. The objectives of this randomized clinical trial were two‐fold: 1) to compare the bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction with extraction plus ridge preservation using corticocancellous porcine bone and a collagen membrane; and 2) to analyze and compare histologic and histomorphometric aspects of the extraction‐alone sites to the grafted sites.Methods: Forty subjects who required tooth extraction and implant placement were enrolled in this study. Using a computer‐generated randomization list, the subjects were randomly assigned to the control group (EXT; extraction alone) or to the test group (RP; ridge‐preservation procedure with corticocancellous porcine bone and collagen membrane). The following parameters were assessed immediately after extraction and 7 months prior to implant placement: plaque index, gingival index, bleeding on probing, horizontal ridge width, and vertical ridge changes. A bone biopsy was taken from the control and test sites 7 months after the surgical treatment. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were also performed.Results: A significantly greater horizontal reabsorption was observed at EXT sites (4.3 ± 0.8 mm) compared to RP sites (2.5 ± 1.2 mm). The ridge height reduction at the buccal side was 3.6 ± 1.5 mm for the extraction‐alone group, whereas it was 0.7 ± 1.4 mm for the ridge‐preservation group. Moreover, the vertical change at the lingual sites was 0.4 mm in the ridge‐preservation group and 3 mm in the extraction‐alone group. Forty biopsies were harvested from the experimental sites (test and control sites). The biopsies harvested from the grafted sites revealed the presence of trabecular bone, which was highly mineralized and well structured. Particles of the grafted material could be identified in all samples. The bone formed in the control sites was also well structured with a minor percentage of mineralized bone. The amount of connective tissue was significantly higher in the extraction‐alone group than in the ridge‐preservation group.Conclusions: The ridge‐preservation approach using porcine bone in combination with collagen membrane significantly limited the resorption of hard tissue ridge after tooth extraction compared to extraction alone. Furthermore, the histologic analysis showed a significantly higher percentage of trabecular bone and total mineralized tissue in ridge‐preservation sites compared to extraction‐alone sites 7 months after tooth removal.

12 July 2012 in Clinical Oral Implants Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Antonio BaroneAntonio Barone
Antonio Barone
MRMassimiliano Ricci
Massimiliano Ricci
PTPaolo Tonelli
Paolo Tonelli
SSStefano Santini
Stefano Santini
UCUgo Covani
Ugo Covani

1 December 2004 in Journal of Periodontology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
UCUgo Covani
Ugo Covani
CBClaudia Bortolaia
Claudia Bortolaia
Antonio BaroneAntonio Barone
Antonio Barone
LSLudovico Sbordone
Ludovico Sbordone
Background: Implants placed immediately after tooth extraction offer several advantages, but many authors have reported problems in filling the residual gap between the implant and the socket walls. Barrier and grafting techniques have been tested and yield varying results, so it has been suggested that the timing of implant placement may be important for success. The aim of this study was to analyze bone healing and coronal bone remodeling around 35 implants, 20 placed immediately after tooth removal and 15 placed 6 to 8 weeks after extraction.Methods: All the implants were submerged and placed within the alveoli confines, leaving circumferential defects because the implants did not contact the bone at their coronal aspects; stabilization was achieved in the bone apically. After implant placement the mean distance from buccal bone to lingual bone was 10 mm (SD 1.522) for immediate implants and 8.86 mm (SD 2.356) for delayed implants. No membrane or filling materials were used. Primary flap closure was accomplished in all cases.Results: At second‐stage surgery all peri‐implant defects were filled, and the mean distance from buccal bone to lingual bone was 8.1 mm (SD 1.334) for immediate implants and 5.8 mm (SD 1.265) for delayed implants. This pattern of coronal bone remodeling, showing a narrowing of the bucco‐lingual width, was clinically similar for the two groups, although it should be noted that the delayed implants exhibited smaller bucco‐lingual bone width already at the first measurement: it can be speculated that early remodeling may start immediately after tooth extraction and continue, non‐uniformly, even after delayed implant placement.Conclusions: This study suggests that circumferential defects could heal clinically without any guided bone regeneration (GBR) in both experimental groups, and that the procedure was virtually free from complications in the postoperative period, probably because of the absence of barrier membranes and/or grafting materials. Histologically, periimplant defects of over 1.5 mm heal by connective tissue apposition, rather than by direct bone‐to‐implant contact, but clinically this healing may be very successful. No histological analysis was carried out in the present study, but even the largest residual gaps were filled with hard tissue that could not be probed. Thus, such outcomes can be considered clinically successful. The different rate of bone remodeling around immediate or delayed implants could have implications for the preferred timing of implant placement in sites of high esthetic concern. J Periodontol 2004;75:1605‐1612.

1 October 2007 in Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Antonio BaroneAntonio Barone
Antonio Barone
UCUgo Covani
Ugo Covani

20 November 2015 in Clinical Oral Implants Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Luigi CanulloLuigi Canullo
Luigi Canullo
Marco TallaricoMarco Tallarico
Marco Tallarico
SRSandro Radovanovic
Sandro Radovanovic
BDBoris Delibasic
Boris Delibasic
UCUgo Covani
Ugo Covani
Mia RAKICMia RAKIC
Mia RAKIC

26 March 2014 in Clinical Oral Implants Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LCLuigi Canullo
Luigi Canullo
DPDavid Penarrocha
David Penarrocha
CSClaudio Soldini
Claudio Soldini
FMFabio Mazzocco
Fabio Mazzocco
MPMaria Penarrocha
Maria Penarrocha
UCUgo Covani
Ugo Covani