Conventional Implant Placement

2022 ◽  
pp. 337-344
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Elçin Bedeloğlu ◽  
Mustafa Yalçın ◽  
Cenker Zeki Koyuncuoğlu

The purpose of this non-random retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of prophylactic antibiotic on early outcomes including postoperative pain, swelling, bleeding and cyanosis in patients undergoing dental implant placement before prosthetic loading. Seventy-five patients (45 males, 30 females) whose dental implant placement were completed, included to the study. Patients used prophylactic antibiotics were defined as the experimental group and those who did not, were defined as the control group. The experimental group received 2 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid 1 h preoperatively and 1 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid twice a day for 5 days postoperatively while the control group had received no prophylactic antibiotic therapy perioperatively. Data on pain, swelling, bleeding, cyanosis, flap dehiscence, suppuration and implant failure were analyzed on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12. No statistically significant difference was detected between the two groups with regard to pain and swelling on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12 ( p >0.05), while the severity of pain and swelling were greater on day 2 compared to day 7 and 14 and week 12 in both groups ( p =0.001 and p <0.05, respectively). Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to postoperative bleeding and cyanosis. Although flap dehiscence was more severe on day 7 in the experimental group, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the percentage of flap dehiscence assessed at other time points. Within limitations of the study, it has been demonstrated that antibiotic use has no effect on implant failure rates in dental implant surgery with a limited number of implants. We conclude that perioperative antibiotic use may not be required in straightforward implant placement procedures. Further randomized control clinical studies with higher numbers of patients and implants are needed to substantiate our findings.


Author(s):  
Yaniv Mayer ◽  
Ofir Ginesin ◽  
Hadar Zigdon-Giladi

Implant primary stability, which depends mainly on the amount and quality of bone, is important for implant survival. Socket preservation aims to reduce bone volumetric changes following tooth extraction. This animal study aims to examine whether preserving a ridge by using xenograft impairs the primary stability of the implant. Eighteen artificial bone defects were prepared in four sheep (5mmØ and 8mm length).  Defects were randomly grafted with xenografts: Bio-Oss (BO), Bioactive Bone (BB), or left for natural healing (control). After 8 weeks, bone biopsy was harvested and dental implants installed. During installation, peak insertion torque (IT) was measured by hand ratchet, and primary stability by the Osstell method. Histomorphometric analysis showed a higher percentage of new bone formation in the naturally healed defects compared to sites with xenograft (control 68.66 ± 4.5%, BB 48.75 ± 4.34%, BO 50.33 ± 4.0%). Connective tissue portion was higher in the BO and BB groups compared to control (44.25 ± 2.98%, 41 ± 6%, and 31.33 ± 4.5, p<0.05, respectively). Residual grafting material was similar in BO and BB (7 ± 2.44%, 8.66 ± 2.1 %, respectively). Mean IT and ISQ values were not statistically different among the groups. A positive correlation was found between IT and ISQ (r=0.65, p=0.00). In conclusion, previously grafted defects with xenograft did not influence primary stability and implant insertion torque in delayed implant placement. These results may be attributed to a relatively high bone fill of the defect (~50%) two months after grafting.


Author(s):  
Judd Sher ◽  
Kate Kirkham-Ali ◽  
Denny Luo ◽  
Catherine Miller ◽  
Dileep Sharma

The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases were used to search for clinical studies (English only) to July 16, 2019. Study quality was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series. A broad search strategy resulted in the identification of 7542 studies. There were 28 studies reporting on bisphosphonates (5 cohort, 6 case control, and 17 case series) and one study reporting on denosumab (case series) that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The quality assessment revealed an overall moderate quality of evidence among the studies. Results demonstrated that patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis are not at increased risk of implant failure in terms of osseointegration. However, all patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment, whether taken orally for osteoporosis or intravenously for malignancy, appear to be at risk of ‘implant surgery-triggered’ MRONJ. In contrast, the risk of MRONJ in patients treated with denosumab for osteoporosis was found to be negligible. In conclusion, general and specialist dentists should exercise caution when planning dental implant therapy in patients with a history of bisphosphonate and denosumab drug therapy. Importantly, all patients with a history of bisphosphonates are at risk of MRONJ, necessitating this to be included in the informed consent obtained prior to implant placement. The James Cook University College of Medicine and Dentistry Honours program and the Australian Dental Research Foundation Colin Cormie Grant were the primary sources of funding for this systematic review.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document