Preservation of Peri-implant Hard Tissues Following Immediate Postextraction Implant Placement. Part I: Radiologic Evaluation

Cardaropoli, Daniele; Tamagnone, Lorenzo; Roffredo, Alessandro; A, De Maria; Gaveglio, Lorena

doi:10.11607/prd.4183

Cited by 10 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Grafting of the space between the implant body and extraction site is recommended to improve bone to implant contact and to prevent horizontal resorption and gingival recessions (Cardaropoli, Tamagnone, Roffredo, De Maria, & Gaveglio, 2019; Kan et al, 2018; Sanz, Lindhe, Alcaraz, Sanz‐Sanchez, & Cecchinato, 2017). Autogenous bone (AB) for bone defect grafting is well documented and is considered the gold standard material because of its osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive characteristics (Kette, Pausch, Wagner, Al‐Nawas, & Nölken, 2019; Noelken et al., 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Noelken

Pausch

Wagner

2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Noelken

Pausch

Wagner

2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The search retrieved eleven papers on the use of EMD in the presence of dental implants in humans ( Table 3 ) [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. The studies reported the results both on soft and hard tissues.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recently, the research by Cardaropoli et al was focused on the EMD application at the level of the hard and soft tissues, at the time of immediately loaded screwed restoration placement [ 38 , 39 ]. The soft tissues esthetics were satisfactory and stable after one year, together with the height and width of the bone crest evaluated through radiographs and CBCTs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Applications of Enamel Matrix Derivative in Implant Dentistry: A Narrative Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has been successfully used for periodontal regeneration in intrabony defects. Recently, its use for peri-implant bone regeneration has also been hypothesized. The aim of this paper is to review preclinical and clinical studies investigating the use of EMD in correspondence with titanium implants, alone or as an adjunct to other biomaterials. Clinical trials and case series with more than five cases were included. Seven in vitro studies evaluated the effect of EMD, placed on titanium surfaces: An increase in proliferation and viability of osteoblasts was observed in all but two studies. An increase in TGF-β1 and osteocalcin production, alkaline phosphatase activity, and angiogenesis was also reported. Nine animal studies investigated the use of EMD at implant placement or for bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects, and some of them reported a significant increase in bone formation or bone-to-implant contact. In four of eleven clinical trials on humans, EMD was successfully used at implant placement. The other seven evaluated the use of EMD in protocols for the treatment of peri-implantitis. In conclusion, the results of EMD seem promising, but further randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy.

show abstract

“…Placement of bone grafting material in the gap between the implant and the buccal bone walls of fresh extraction sockets influences hard tissue healing and decreases marginal bone loss 20,21 . Bone grafting at the gap is recommended to improve bone contact to the implant surface and decrease gingival recession resulting from horizontal bone resorption [22][23][24] . Although, there is not enough evidence supporting the need for augmentation at the gaps and the kinds of augmentation procedures 25 , many studies have shown that bone grafting improves implant survival and success rates 15 .…”

Section: Bone Augmentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets

Lee

2021

JKAOMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immediate implant placement (IIP) in fresh extraction sockets exhibits similar survival and success rates to delayed implant placement in healed sockets. Several advantages of IIP involve shortened total treatment time, reduction of the number of invasive surgeries, and subsequent reduction of patient discomfort due to lack of additional surgeries. The major shortcomings in IIP, however, include the inability to obtain early bony support, presence of a gap between the extraction socket and fixture, and the inability to cover the fixture with soft tissue, leading to increased risk of infection and implant loss. When IIP is performed, atraumatic or minimally traumatic extractions, conservation of the septal bone in molars, minimal flap elevation or flapless surgery, bone grafting the gap between the fixture and the extraction socket, and coverage with soft tissue or a membrane must be considered.

show abstract

Preservation of Peri-implant Hard Tissues Following Immediate Postextraction Implant Placement. Part I: Radiologic Evaluation

Cited by 10 publications

References 9 publications

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

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

The Applications of Enamel Matrix Derivative in Implant Dentistry: A Narrative Review

Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About