Immediate loading after implant placement following tooth extraction up-regulates cellular activity in the dog mandible

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 1372-1378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryuta Sato ◽  
Kenichi Matsuzaka ◽  
Eitoyo Kokubu ◽  
Takashi Inoue
Keyword(s):  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Immediate Loading ◽  
Cellular Activity ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals Immediate Loading of Single Post-Extractive Implants in the Anterior Maxilla: 12-Month Results From a Multicenter Clinical Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (S1) ◽  
pp. 477-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommaso Grandi ◽  
Giovanna Garuti ◽  
Rawad Samarani ◽  
Paolo Guazzi ◽  
Andrea Forabosco
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Resorption ◽  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Immediate Loading ◽  
Insertion Torque ◽  
Anterior Maxilla ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Implant Size ◽  
Multicenter Clinical Study

The purpose of the study was to evaluate survival and peri-implant bone levels of single, immediately loaded post-extractive implants in the anterior maxilla 12 months after implant placement. Thirty-six consecutive patients from 3 study centers were included in the study. The concerned sites were upper premolars, canines, and incisors. For each patient the following data were recorded: reason for tooth extraction, bone quality, implant size, and final insertion torque. Implants were placed using a flapless technique and immediately loaded with a nonoccluding temporary restoration. Final restorations were provided 4 months later. Peri-implant bone resorption was evaluated radiographically after 6 and 12 months. The average final insertion torque was 70.55 Ncm. One implant inserted in D3 quality bone with a 35-Ncm seating torque was lost. All other implants had a final insertion torque ranging between 50 and 80 Ncm. The average peri-implant bone loss was 0.437 and 0.507 mm at 6 and 12 months, respectively. All the sites maintained excellent papillae and peri-implant soft-tissue conditions. The resulting 1-year success rate was 97.2%. Immediate nonfunctional loading of single post-extractive implants in the anterior maxilla is a predictable treatment. And it seems that achieving high insertion torques by placing self-tapping/self-condensing implants in an underprepared osteotomy is favorable.

Implant Placement and Immediate Loading With Fixed Restorations in Augmented Sockets. Five-Year Results. A Case Report

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory-George K. Zafiropoulos ◽  
Giorgio Deli ◽  
Gianluca Vittorini ◽  
Oliver Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Plaque Index ◽  
Immediate Loading ◽  
Bleeding On Probing ◽  
Socket Preservation ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Attachment Level

In this report, a case is presented in which a patient received eight implants 10 months after tooth extraction and socket preservation. The implants were placed in both arches (maxilla = 4, mandible = 4) and immediately loaded using fixed partial restorations; they remained functional over 5 years. No changes in bleeding on probing or plaque index were observed; however, a 1.5-mm probing attachment level loss was observed during the first 3 years (mean: 0.25 mm/year) with no subsequent changes.

scholarly journals Basal Implant: A Remedy to Restore Resorbed Alveolar Ridges

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prakhar Thakur ◽  
Tarun Kalra ◽  
Manjit Kumar ◽  
Ajay Bansal ◽  
Shefali Malik
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Bone ◽  
Immediate Loading ◽  
Osseous Tissue ◽  
Alveolar Process ◽  
Implant Stability ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Cortical Screw ◽  
Functional Differences ◽  
Basal Bone ◽  
Cortical Implants

AbstractThe conventional crestal implants are used only when there is adequate jawbone height and width. Results of conventional implants are good in patients with healthy bone at the time of treatment, but prognosis gets deteriorated when surgical augmentation of bone is included with implant placement. These augmentation procedures have surgical risks and are costlier to the patients. Patients with atrophied jawbones are given no treatment, until crestal implants are seen as the last option. In this article, the indications for basal implants and functional differences between basal implants and crestal implants have been discussed.Patients with extreme jawbone atrophy do not benefit from crestal implants. The basal bone is the (cortical) osseous tissue of the mandible and maxilla, and lies below the alveolar process, which has a relatively strong and no resorbing framework.Basal osseointegrated and basal cortical screw (BCS) are two types of implants designed to take anchorage from the cortical bone of the jaw. BCS implants have long shafts and can be placed immediately in the socket after extraction and provided with immediate loading within 72 hours of implant placement. Basal implants are also called bicortical or cortical implants as they utilize the cortical portion of the jawbones for anchorage and implant stability. The basal bone has better quality and quantity of cortical bone for retention of these unique and highly advanced implants. The other names for these implants are lateral implants or disk implants.

scholarly journals A case series of profilometric changes in two implant placement protocols at periodontally compromised non-molar sites

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwantae Noh ◽  
Daniel S. Thoma ◽  
Jung-Chul Park ◽  
Dong-Woon Lee ◽  
Seung-Yun Shin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Tissue Level ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Alveolar Ridge Preservation ◽  
Tissue Changes ◽  
Facial Area

AbstractInformation regarding profilometric changes at a soft tissue level following implant placement with different protocols is insufficient. Therefore, this study aimed to comparatively investigate the profilometric tissue changes with respect to late implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (LP/ARP) and early implantation (EP) in periodontally compromised non-molar extraction sites. Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to the following groups: implant placement 4 months post-ARP (group LP/ARP) and tooth extraction and implant placement 4–8 weeks post-extraction (group EP). Dental impressions were obtained immediately after final prosthesis insertion and at 3, 6, and 12 months. At the time of implant placement, bone augmentation was performed in the majority of the patients. Profilometric changes of the tissue contour were minimal between the final prosthesis insertion and 12 months in the mid-facial area (0.04–0.35 mm in group LP/ARP, 0.04–0.19 mm in group EP). The overall tissue volume increased in both groups (1.70 mm3 in group LP/ARP, 0.96 mm3 in group EP). In conclusion, LP/ARP and EP led to similar stability of the peri-implant tissue contour between the final prosthesis insertion and at 12 months. Moreover, the change of peri-implant tissue on the soft tissue level was minimal in both modalities.

Efficacy of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Avila-Ortiz ◽  
M. Gubler ◽  
M. Romero-Bustillos ◽  
C.L. Nicholas ◽  
M.B. Zimmerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Ridge Preservation ◽  
Alveolar Ridge ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Alveolar Ridge Preservation

Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) therapy is indicated to attenuate the physiologic resorptive events that occur as a consequence of tooth extraction with the purpose of facilitating tooth replacement therapy. This randomized controlled trial was primarily aimed at testing the efficacy of ARP as compared with unassisted socket healing. A secondary objective was to evaluate the effect that local phenotypic factors play in the volumetric reduction of the alveolar bone. A total of 53 subjects completed the study. Subjects were randomized into either the control group, which involved only tooth extraction (EXT n = 27), or the experimental group, which received ARP using a combination of socket grafting with a particulate bone allograft and socket sealing with a nonabsorbable membrane (dPTFE) following tooth extraction (ARP n = 26). A set of clinical, linear, volumetric, implant-related, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed during a 14-wk healing period. All linear bone assessments (horizontal, midbuccal, and midlingual reduction) revealed that ARP is superior to EXT. Likewise, volumetric bone resorption was significantly higher in the control group (mean ± SD: EXT = −15.83% ± 4.48%, ARP = −8.36% ± 3.81%, P < 0.0001). Linear regression analyses revealed that baseline buccal bone thickness is a strong predictor of alveolar bone resorption in both groups. Interestingly, no significant differences in terms of soft tissue contour change were observed between groups. Additional bone augmentation to facilitate implant placement in a prosthetically acceptable position was deemed necessary in 48.1% of the EXT sites and only 11.5% of the ARP sites ( P < 0.004). Assessment of perceived postoperative discomfort at each follow-up visit revealed a progressive decrease over time, which was comparable between groups. Although some extent of alveolar ridge remodeling occurred in both groups, ARP therapy was superior to EXT as it was more efficacious in the maintenance of alveolar bone and reduced the estimated need for additional bone augmentation at the time of implant placement (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01794806).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document