Immediate non-occlusal loading of immediate post-extractive versus delayed placement of single implants in preserved sockets of the anterior maxilla: 4-month post-loading results from a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial.
ABSTRACT To compare the effectiveness of immediate post-extractive single implants with delayed implants placed in preserved sockets after 4 months of healing. Implants that achieved an insertion torque of at least 35 Ncm were immediately non-occlusally loaded.
Just after tooth extraction and in the presence of a loss of the buccal plate bone less than 4 mm, compared to the palatal wall, 106 patients requiring a single immediate postextractive implant in the maxilla from second premolar to second premolar were randomly allocated to immediate implant placement (immediate group; 54 patients) or to socket preservation using anorganic bovine bone covered by a resorbable collagen barrier (delayed group; 52 patients) according to a parallel group design at three different centres. Bone-to-implant gaps were to be filled with anorganic bovine bone, however this was not done in 17 patients (corresponding to 40% of those who should have been grafted). Four months after socket preservation, delayed implants were placed. Implants placed with an insertion torque >35 Ncm were immediately loaded with non-occluding provisional single crowns, replaced, after 4 months, by definitive crowns. Outcome measures were implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES), and patient satisfaction, recorded by blinded assessors. All patients were followed up to 4 months after loading.
Nineteen (35%) implants were not immediately loaded in the immediate group versus 39 (75%) implants in the delayed placement group because an insertion torque >35 Ncm could not be obtained. No patient dropped out. Two implants failed in the immediate group (4%) versus none in the delayed group. More minor complications occurred in the immediate group (8) than the in the delayed group (1) and this was statistically significant (P = 0.032). At delivery of definitive crowns, 4 months after loading, aesthetics were scored as 12.8 and 12.6 in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.5). Patients of both groups were equally satisfied.
There were more complications at immediate post-extractive implants when compared to delayed implants. The aesthetic outcome appears to be similar for both groups and it seems more difficult to obtain a high insertion torque in sockets preserved with anorganic bovine bone.
- SourceAvailable from: Matteo Capelli[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose: To evaluate whether grafting with additional anorganic bovine bone to augment horizontally the buccal plate (internal and external grafting [IEG]) at single post-extractive implants preserves the alveolar ridge, improving aesthetics, better than internal socket grafting alone (ISGA). Material and methods: A total of 78 patients, treated in four Italian private practices, requiring a single immediate post-extractive implant, having at least 1 mm of implant-to-buccal bone gap after implant insertion and a preserved buccal bone, had the residual bone-to-implant gap filled with anorganic bovine bone. Thirty-nine randomly allocated patients received additional buccal horizontal augmentation of about 2 mm thickness with the same bone substitute (IEG group) covered with collagen resorbable membranes. Implants were submerged for 4 months before being loaded with provisional acrylic crowns. Definitive crowns were delivered after 6 months. Outcome measures were crown/implant failures, complications and aesthetics recorded by blinded assessors 6 months after initial loading, at delivery of definitive crowns. Results: Six months after initial loading, 8 patients dropped out, did not complete the treatment or were treated twice and therefore had to be excluded (4 from each group). There were no statistically significant differences for implant failures and complications between the two groups. Two implants failed in the IEG group versus 1 in the ISGA group. Four complications occurred, 2 in each group. The mean implant aesthetic score (IAS) was 7.8 at ISGA sites and 8.0 at IEG sites. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.492; difference 0.2 mm; 95% CI -0.769, 0.369) for IAS score. There were no statistically significant differences in the outcomes between the centres. Conclusions: The use of adjunctive anorganic bovine bone placed buccally at preserved buccal sites of immediate post-extractive implants may not improve the aesthetic outcome, however additional research is needed to confirm or reject these preliminary findings.European Journal of Oral Implantology 01/2013; 6(3):239-50. · 2.57 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Placement of implants in the alveolar process elicits a sequence of healing events, which includes necrosis and subsequent resorption of the trauma-tized bone around the titanium surface while new bone formation takes place. 1 Whereas the initial mechanical stability of the implant owes to direct contact and friction between the implant surface and the bone, the long-term maintenance of this stability requires a biological attach-ment between the foreign body and the surrounding tissues. The peri-implant bone adjusts its architecture in relation to its functional loading bearing, and the strains induced by these loads affect the bone remodeling process. Soft tissue stability around dental im-plants is crucial for the predictable and routine restoration of single teeth and partially edentulous patients. In turn, the soft tissues are supported by the under-lying alveolar crest. one of the most commonly suspected etiologies for early implant failure. Eleva-tion of the periosteal flap, heat generat-ed at the time of drilling, and excessive pressure at the crestal region during im-plant placement may contribute to im-plant bone loss during the healing peri-od. The questions that will be addressed are the following: Is surgical trauma determined by periosteal detachment during sec-ond stage surgery considered a cause of bone resorption? Is it possible to reduce the surgical trauma during implant site prepara-tion using a piezosurgery insert?European journal of esthetic dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Esthetic Dentistry, The 05/2013; 8(2):279-300.
- European Journal of Oral Implantology 01/2012; 5(3):277-85. · 2.57 Impact Factor