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.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Augmentation of the extraction socket (ridge preservation) is increasingly being advocated in anticipation of implant placement. The aim of this article is to review the available evidence with regards to ridge preservation procedures, investigating whether these techniques improve dental implant treatment outcomes. Evidence is examined to compare these techniques to other treatment alternatives such as implant placement with simultaneous lateral augmentation. An electronic PubMed search was conducted using search terms relevant to assessing treatment outcomes in association with ridge preservation. Titles were screened and full text obtained where relevant. Further full text articles were obtained from analysis of those papers yielded from the original search. Twenty-two papers were finally selected for analysis. Ridge preservation techniques are effective in minimizing post-extraction alveolar ridge contraction. However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the use of these techniques in conjunction with dental implant treatment improves implant treatment outcomes. Furthermore, ridge preservation does not necessarily eliminate the need for further simultaneous augmentation at the time of implant placement. The delayed healing associated with ridge preservation using socket grafting necessitates a commitment to a delayed placement protocol. The extended treatment time, compromised healing and expense related to ridge preservation suggests a more cautious approach with regards to the indication of such techniques.Australian Dental Journal 03/2014; 59(1):48-56. · 1.37 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of an anorganic bovine bone graft particulate to that of a calcium phosphosilicate putty alloplast for socket preservation. Materials and Methods: Thirty teeth were extracted from 24 patients. The sockets were debrided and received anorganic bovine bone mineral (BOV, n = 12), calcium phosphosilicate putty (PUT, n = 12), or no graft (CTRL, n = 6). The sockets were assessed clinically and radiographically 5 months later. Eight sockets in the BOV group and nine in the PUT group received implants 5 to 6 months postgrafting. The maximum implant insertion torque (MIT) was measured as an index of primary implant stability. The data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test. Results: Both test groups had statistically significantly less reduction in mean ridge width (BOV: 1.39 ± 0.57 mm; PUT: 1.26 ± 0.41 mm) in comparison to the control group (2.53 ± 0.59 mm). No statistically significant difference was identified between the test groups. MIT for PUT was ≤ 35 N/cm² (MIT grade 4) for seven of the nine implants. MIT values in the BOV group ranged from grade 1 (10 to 19 N/cm²) to grade 4, which was statistically significantly lower than for the PUT group. The overall implant success rate was 94.1% (16 of 17 implants were successful). No implants were lost in the PUT group; one implant failed in the BOV group. Conclusion: Both tested bone substitutes can be recommended for preservation of alveolar ridge width following extraction. PUT might be more suitable for achieving primary stability for implants placed at 5 to 6 months postextraction.The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants 01/2014; 29(1):141-51. · 1.91 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The aim of this prospective multicentre study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of immediately loaded single implants. Materials and methods: Patients were recruited at six clinical centres. Inclusion criteria were singletooth replacement in fully healed sites or post-extraction sockets with adequate bone height and width, to place an implant of at least 3.5 mm in diameter and 10.0 mm in length. All implants (AnyRidge, MegaGen, Gyeongbuk, South Korea) were functionally loaded immediately after placement. After 3 months, final crowns were delivered. All implants were followed for 1 year. Outcome measures were: implant stability; complications; peri-implant marginal bone level changes; probing pocket depth. Results: Fifty-seven implants (38 in the maxilla and 19 in the mandible) were placed in 46 patients (23 males, 23 females, aged between 18 to 73 years). Ten implants were placed in post-extraction sockets. Two patients (two implants) withdrew from the study and were classified as drop-outs. At the end of the study, only one implant was lost in a healed site. All the surviving implants were stable, giving an overall 1-year survival rate of 97.7% (patient-based). A few complications (one patient experienced swelling after surgery, two had loosened abutments and another patient had a ceramic crown fracture) were encountered. After 1 year of functional loading, the patients had lost an average of 0.32 mm (± 0.22) of peri-implant marginal bone; the mean probing pocket depth (PPD) was 2.16 mm (± 0.68). Conclusions: Within its limit (limited number of patients treated and self-evaluation of the outcomes), this study supports the concept that immediate functional loading of single dental implants can be a successful treatment procedure, with satisfactory clinical outcomes. Conflict-of-interest statement: MegaGen Implant Co., Gyeongbuk, South Korea, the manufacturer of the implants used in this investigation, partially supported this study by donating the implants and prosthetic components; however, the research data belonged to the authors and by no means did Megagen interfere with the conduct of the study or the publication of the results.European journal of oral implantology. 01/2014; 7(2):187-99.