Dataset Information

A case series of profilometric changes in two implant placement protocols at periodontally compromised non-molar sites.

ABSTRACT: Information regarding profilometric changes at a soft tissue level following implant placement with different protocols is insufficient. Therefore, this study aimed to comparatively investigate the profilometric tissue changes with respect to late implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (LP/ARP) and early implantation (EP) in periodontally compromised non-molar extraction sites. Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to the following groups: implant placement 4 months post-ARP (group LP/ARP) and tooth extraction and implant placement 4-8 weeks post-extraction (group EP). Dental impressions were obtained immediately after final prosthesis insertion and at 3, 6, and 12 months. At the time of implant placement, bone augmentation was performed in the majority of the patients. Profilometric changes of the tissue contour were minimal between the final prosthesis insertion and 12 months in the mid-facial area (0.04-0.35 mm in group LP/ARP, 0.04-0.19 mm in group EP). The overall tissue volume increased in both groups (1.70 mm³ in group LP/ARP, 0.96 mm³ in group EP). In conclusion, LP/ARP and EP led to similar stability of the peri-implant tissue contour between the final prosthesis insertion and at 12 months. Moreover, the change of peri-implant tissue on the soft tissue level was minimal in both modalities.

SUBMITTER: Noh K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7813861 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A case series of profilometric changes in two implant placement protocols at periodontally compromised non-molar sites.

Noh Kwantae K Thoma Daniel S DS Park Jung-Chul JC Lee Dong-Woon DW Shin Seung-Yun SY Lim Hyun-Chang HC

Scientific reports 20210118 1

Information regarding profilometric changes at a soft tissue level following implant placement with different protocols is insufficient. Therefore, this study aimed to comparatively investigate the profilometric tissue changes with respect to late implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (LP/ARP) and early implantation (EP) in periodontally compromised non-molar extraction sites. Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to the following groups: implant placement 4 months post-ARP ( ...[more]

PMID: 33462323

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Immediate implants are frequently employed in the anterior maxillary area. However, the installation of dental implants simultaneously with tooth extraction can also provide with benefits in the posterior areas with a reduction in time prior the recovery of the masticatory function. Results previously reported in the literature show high-survival and success rates for implants placed in extraction sockets in molar areas; however, this topic has received limited systematic analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several data-bases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to January 2019 reporting outcomes of immediate implants placed in molar areas. Primary outcomes included survival and success rates, as well as marginal bone loss. Secondary outcomes included the influence of implant position, type of implant connection, grafting protocol, flap or flapless approach, implant diameter, surgical phase, presence of buccal plate, and loading protocol. RESULTS:Twenty studies provided information on the survival rate, with a total sample of 1.106 implants. The weighted mean survival rate of immediate implants after 1 year of follow-up was 96.6%, and the success rate was 93.3%. On the other hand, marginal bone loss was 1.29 ± 0.24 mm. Secondary outcomes demonstrated that grafting the gap and the loading protocol have an effect on survival and success rates. Similarly, the presence or absence of the buccal bone affect crestal bone levels. Meta-analysis of 4 investigations showed a weighted mean difference of 0.31 mm ± 0.8 IC 95% (0.15-0.46) more marginal bone loss at immediate implant placement versus implants in healed sites (p < 0.001) I2 = 15.2%. CONCLUSION:In selected scenarios, immediate implant placement in molar extraction socket might be considered a predictable technique as demonstrated by a high survival and success rates, with minimal marginal bone loss.

Project description:BACKGROUND:One of the challenges encountered by clinicians new to implant dentistry is the determination and controlling of implant location. This study compared the accuracy of fully guided (FG) and pilot-guided (PG) static computer-assisted implant placement (sCAIP) protocols against the conventional freehand (FH) protocol for placing single anterior and posterior implants by recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Ten clinicians new to implant dentistry inserted one anterior (central incisor) and one posterior (first molar) implants per protocol in training maxillary models. The FG protocol involved drilling and implant placement through the guide, while the PG protocol controlled the pilot drilling only. The FH implant placement was completed without the aid of any guide. A total of 30 models were used, and 60 implants were inserted. The implant vertical, horizontal neck, horizontal apex, and angle deviations from planned positions were calculated. RESULTS:The FG protocol provided the most accurate implant placement in relation to horizontal neck (0.47 mm-0.52 mm), horizontal apex (0.71 mm-0.74 mm), and angle deviations (2.42o-2.61o). The vertical deviation was not significantly different among the different protocols. The PG protocol was generally similar to the FH protocol with a horizontal neck deviation of 1.01 mm-1.14 mm, horizontal apex deviation of 1.02 mm-1.35 mm, and angle deviation of 4.65o-7.79o. The FG protocol showed similarity in the accuracy of the anterior and posterior implants. There was a tendency for inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants for the PG and FH protocols. CONCLUSIONS:In the hands of recently introduced clinicians to implant dentistry, it appears that the accuracy of the FG protocol was superior to the other protocols and was not influenced by the position of the implants. The PG and FH protocols showed inferior accuracy for posterior implants compared with anterior implants.

Dataset Information

A case series of profilometric changes in two implant placement protocols at periodontally compromised non-molar sites.

Publications

A case series of profilometric changes in two implant placement protocols at periodontally compromised non-molar sites.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets