» Articles » PMID: 25338960

Peri-implant Bone Response Following Immediate Implants Placed in the Esthetic Zone and with Immediate Provisionalization--a Case Series Study

Overview
Date 2014 Oct 24
PMID 25338960
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this case series was to evaluate success and peri-implant bone response around Morse taper immediate implants with an immediate provisionalization.

Methods: Twelve immediate implants were inserted in the maxilla of nine consecutively treated patients. Proximal bone response was evaluated with digital periapical radiographs, and the buccal wall height and width were evaluated with computed tomography.

Results: A slight decrease in the marginal bone crest (0.14 ± 0.41 mm) at the mesial face and an increase (0.07 ± 1.58 mm) at the distal face were observed. Considering the point where bone tissue meets the implant surface, there was a statistically significant increase at the mesial face (0.92 ± 1.29 mm) and a not significant increase at the distal face (0.43 ± 1.63 mm). Buccal bone wall width showed a statistically significant bone loss at the level of the implant/abutment junction (0.77 ± 0.75 mm) and at 3 mm (0.59 ± 0.76 mm) and 6 mm (0.46 ± 0.81 mm) apically to the implant/abutment junction. The height of the buccal wall showed a not statistically significant resorption (0.20 ± 0.51 mm).

Conclusion: Based on the preliminary results (8 months) of this case series study, it can be concluded that there was bone loss on the mesial bone crest level and on the buccal face and bone increases on the mesial and distal faces in the area where the bone meets the implant surface. Nevertheless, this is just a case series study, and long-term controlled clinical trials are essential for a definitive conclusion.

Citing Articles

Bone response after immediate placement of implants in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review.

Denardi R, da Silva R, Thome G, Andrighetto A, de Freitas R, Shimizu R Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 23(1):13-25.

PMID: 30712238 DOI: 10.1007/s10006-019-00742-9.

References
1.
Araujo M, Linder E, Lindhe J . Bio-Oss collagen in the buccal gap at immediate implants: a 6-month study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 22(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01920.x. View

2.
Barcelos M, Novaes Junior A, Conz M, Harari N, Vidigal Junior G . Diagnosis and treatment of extraction sockets in preparation for implant placement: report of three cases. Braz Dent J. 2008; 19(2):159-64. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402008000200013. View

3.
Chappuis V, Engel O, Reyes M, Shahim K, Nolte L, Buser D . Ridge alterations post-extraction in the esthetic zone: a 3D analysis with CBCT. J Dent Res. 2013; 92(12 Suppl):195S-201S. PMC: 3860068. DOI: 10.1177/0022034513506713. View

4.
Funato A, Salama M, Ishikawa T, Garber D, Salama H . Timing, positioning, and sequential staging in esthetic implant therapy: a four-dimensional perspective. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007; 27(4):313-23. View

5.
Van der Weijden F, DellAcqua F, Slot D . Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36(12):1048-58. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01482.x. View