Peri‐implant defect grafting with autogenous bone or bone graft material in immediate implant placement in molar extraction sites—1‐ to 3‐year results of a prospective randomized study

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the survival rate, the orobuccal bone resorption and stability of peri‐implant hard and soft tissues following immediate implant placement of wide diameter implants in molar extraction sites and peri‐implant defect grafting with autogenous bone (AB) or biphasic bone graft material (BBGM) with 1‐ to 3‐year follow‐up examinations. Material and Methods Fifty wide diameter implants were placed in 50 patients immediately into molar extraction sockets by a flapless approach. Peri‐implant defect augmentation was performed randomized with either AB or BBGM. Primary outcome variable was implant survival. Marginal bone level changes, orobuccal width of the alveolar crest, probing depths, and implant success were considered as secondary parameters. Results One implant of the BBGM group was lost, 1 patient withdrew from the study (drop‐out). The remaining 48 patients were still in function at a follow‐up period up to 31 months after implant insertion. Interproximal marginal bone level regenerated from −7.5 mm to the level of the implant shoulder (AB + 0.38 mm, BBGM + 0.1 mm) at final follow‐up. The width of the alveolar crest changed by −0.08 mm (AB) and +0.72 mm (BBGM) at 1 mm, −0.36 mm (AB) and +0.27 mm (BBGM) at 3 mm, −0.36 mm (AB) and +0.31 mm (BBGM) at 6 mm apical to implant shoulder level. Success rate was 87.5% in the AB and 56.3% in the BBGM group (p = .058). Conclusions Medium‐term results prove a high survival rate, a favorable amount of bone generation in both groups and a low amount of orobuccal resorption in immediate molar implant insertion.

Efficacy of bone‐substitute materials use in immediate dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Four trials 41 , 47 , 48 , 49 with a total of 105 participants (112 implants) compared different types of BSMs with each other. Two trials compared allograft to alloplast, 41 , 48 one trial 49 autograft to allograft, and one alloplast to autograft.…”

“…Four trials 41 , 47 , 48 , 49 with a total of 105 participants (112 implants) compared different types of BSMs with each other. Two trials compared allograft to alloplast, 41 , 48 one trial 49 autograft to allograft, and one alloplast to autograft. 47 The trials did not use barrier membranes, though one trial 49 did use platelet‐rich fibrin (PRF) to seal the gap between the implant and the socket.…”

“…Two trials compared allograft to alloplast, 41 , 48 one trial 49 autograft to allograft, and one alloplast to autograft. 47 The trials did not use barrier membranes, though one trial 49 did use platelet‐rich fibrin (PRF) to seal the gap between the implant and the socket. The longest follow‐up ranged from 6 to 44 months from placement.…”

Bone Regeneration Assessment of Polycaprolactone Membrane on Critical-Size Defects in Rat Calvaria

“…Current implant systems are increasingly using methods for reconstruction of the alveolar process to allow optimal positioning of implants for esthetic and functional purposes [1][2][3][4][5][6].…”

Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets

“…Unlike studies on drilling in healed alveolar ridges, many studies on implant placement in extraction sockets have focused on single-rooted teeth such as premolars and those found in the esthetic zone [10][11][12] . However, in recent years, many studies on IIP in fresh extraction sockets of molars have been performed [13][14][15] .…”