scholarly journals Partial extraction therapy ‐ A graftless solution for adjacent implants in the aesthetic zone

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (S19) ◽  
pp. 66-66
Author(s):  
Tunkiwala Ali ◽  
Udatta Kher ◽  
Danesh Vazifdar ◽  
Sanchez Jose
Keyword(s):  
Extraction Therapy ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Partial Extraction

scholarly journals On the Ten-Year Success in the Application of Partial Extraction Therapy: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1435-1443
Author(s):  
Mohammed M. Al Moaleem
Keyword(s):  
Tooth Replacement ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Extraction Therapy ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Report Data ◽  
Immediate Implant ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Esthetic Dentistry ◽  
Partial Extraction

Hürzeler presented the socket-shield technique (SST) more than 10 years ago. The partial extraction therapy (PET), a collective concept of utilizing the patient’s own tooth root to preserve the periodontium and peri-implant tissue, has been remarkably developed. PET comprises a group of novel techniques for post-extraction implant placement. Several modifications of PET and simultaneous implant placement have been presented since its inception. Since its origin, several alterations have been employed in the methodology of partial extraction of the root and the simultaneous implant placement. A repeatable, predictable protocol is needed to provide tooth replacement in esthetic dentistry. Moreover, a standardized procedure provides a good framework for clinicians to report data relating to the technique with procedural consistency. This review aims to illustrate a reproducible and systematic protocol for the PET techniques with immediate implant placement at the aesthetic zone. The most used technique is the socket-shield technique, which is potentially offers promising results, minimizing the necessity for invasive bone grafts round implants in the aesthetic area, clinical data to support this is very inadequate. The limited research data existing is cooperated by a deficiency of well-designed prospective randomized controlled investigations. The present case studies and techniques are of actual incomplete technical value. Retrospective studies published in limited records but are of inconsistent plan. At this point, it is indistinct whether the socket-shield technique will offer a stable long-time outcome or not

Errors and Complications in Partial Extraction Therapy

2020 ◽  
pp. 247-307
Author(s):  
Sudhindra Kulkarni ◽  
Tarun Kumar ◽  
T. V. Narayan ◽  
Ali Tunkiwala
Keyword(s):  
Extraction Therapy ◽  
Partial Extraction

Partial Extraction Therapy: A Review of Human Clinical Studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David T Wu ◽  
Shahram Raoof ◽  
Jessica M Latimer ◽  
Thomas T. Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Ridge Augmentation ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Extraction Therapy ◽  
Partial Extraction

Partial extraction therapy (PET) is a collective concept encompassing a group of surgical techniques including socket shield, root membrane, proximal shield, pontic shield and root submergence. PET utilizes the patient’s own root structure to maintain blood supply derived from the periodontal ligament complex in order to preserve the periodontium and peri-implant tissues during restorative and implant therapy. This review aims to summarize current knowledge regarding PET techniques and present a comprehensive evaluation of human clinical studies in the literature. Two independent reviewers conducted electronic and manual searches until January 1 st , 2021 in the following electronic bibliographic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source. Grey literature was searched to identify additional candidates for potential inclusion. Articles were screened by a group of 4 reviewers using the Covidence software and synthesized. Systematic search of the literature yielded 5,714 results. 64 articles were selected for full-text assessment, of which, 42 eligible studies were included in the review. 12 studies were added to the synthesis after manual search of the reference lists. A total of 54 studies were examined in this review. In sum, PET techniques offer several clinical advantages: 1) preservation of buccal bone post-extraction and limitation of alveolar ridge resorption 2) mitigation of the need for invasive ridge augmentation procedures 3) soft tissue dimensional stability and high esthetic outcomes. Further randomized clinical studies with larger sample sizes are needed to improve understanding of the long-term clinical outcomes of PET.

scholarly journals Comparison of Orthodontic Treatment Duration Among Extraction Versus Non Extraction Therapies

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-60
Author(s):  
Dashrath Kafle ◽  
Rajeev Kumar Mishra ◽  
Ravi Kumar Mahto ◽  
Sanjeev Luintel ◽  
Suja Shrestha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Duration ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Class I ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Treatment Result ◽  
Average Treatment ◽  
Extraction Therapy ◽  
Partial Extraction

Introduction: Orthodontic treatment is usually perceived as a lengthy treatment as average treatment time usually last more than a year and may go up to even five years. So, in orthodontic practice the optimum treatment result with minimal treatment time should be the goal of clinicians. Treatment duration varies based on different clinico-environmental factors. Materials & Method: Total 200 cases were randomly selected from the archives of debonded treatment records from the department of orthodontics, Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Teaching Hospital. Out of the 200 records, 103 records were fit for the study based on previously set inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selected cases were divided into three different groups: extraction n= 28 (extraction of 4 premolars), partial extraction= 19, (extraction of 1-3 teeth) and non-extraction n=56. Furthermore, the cases were also divided into Class I, II and III malocclusion patterns. After doing the test of normality, descriptive statistics, independent samples t test and ANOVA test were performed to compare the treatment duration with respect to gender, malocclusion pattern and treatment modalities. Result: Out of the 103 selected cases, maximum number of cases were of Class I(60) followed by Class II(37) and Class III(6). There was no statistical significance on treatment duration among male and female subjects (p= 0.933) as well as among different malocclusion pattern ( p= 0.255). On the contrary, there was statistical difference on treatment duration among non extraction, partial extraction and extraction groups ( p=0.0004). The average treatment duration for non extraction, partial extraction and extraction group were 22, 28 and 29 months respectively. Conclusion: Orthodontic treatment duration is shorter for therapies done by non extraction than extraction. The average treatment duration for non extraction and extraction therapy is 22 and 29 months respectively. The treatment duration is not affected by gender and type of malocclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document