Ridge Alterations following Immediate Implant Placement and the Treatment of Bone Defects with Bio-Oss in an Animal Model

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 690-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kuo-Mei Hsu ◽  
Byung-Ho Choi ◽  
Chang-Yong Ko ◽  
Han-Sung Kim ◽  
Feng Xuan ◽  
...  
2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marwan Abou Rass

Abstract The immediate placement of implants in the fresh extraction sockets of infected teeth with periradicular and periapical lesions is contraindicated because of both the infection and the loss of architecture required for proper implant placement. There are 4 approaches for implant replacement of a hopeless tooth with lesions: (1) extraction and delayed implant placement; (2) extraction, debridement, guided bone regeneration (GBR), guided tissue regeneration (GTR), and delayed implant placement; (3) extraction, intrasocket debridement, and immediate implant placement; or (4) extraction, debridement, GBR, GTR, and simultaneous implant placement. The extraction of such hopeless teeth often results in large bone and soft tissue defects that are difficult to repair. This article introduces an alternative approach: interim endodontic implant site preparation, defined as a transitional, surgical, or nonsurgical endodontic treatment to regenerate the hopeless tooth bone defects and prepare the site for proper implant placement. This article describes 3 distinct interim endodontic protocols used to manage 5 patients, all of whom had severely infected hopeless teeth with large lesions and were treatment planned for implant replacement: the first, interim nonsurgical endodontic treatment to restore the normal anatomy of the infected hopeless tooth; the second, interim surgical endodontics on the hopeless tooth with preexisting endodontic treatment to regenerate apical bone for primary implant stability, thus avoiding the involvement of the maxillary sinus and other critical anatomic structures; and the third, interim surgical endodontics on the hopeless tooth with preexisting endodontic treatment to confine the size of the osseous defect and simplify the GBR and GTR procedures. The outcome of interim endodontic treatment on these 5 patients demonstrated that tooth extraction would have been a less predictable approach. The interim treatment changed the overall direction of the patients' dental care. When treated, these hopeless teeth served many preventive, biologic, and esthetic functions. The infections of the alveolar sockets were eliminated, the alveolar bone defects were repaired through normal bone regeneration, and sockets anatomies were maintained or restored. Furthermore, the patients were spared maxillary sinus surgery and the possible complications resulting from major GBR and GTR procedures. In summary, the interim treatment facilitated tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.


2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Kamperos ◽  
Ioanna Zambara ◽  
Vassileios Petsinis ◽  
Dimitrios Zambaras

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of buccal bone defects and immediate placement on the esthetic outcome of maxillary anterior single-tooth implants. The archives of the Department of Dental Implants & Tissue Regeneration at Hygeia Hospital during a 5-year period (2010–2014) were retrospectively analyzed, in search of patients treated with a single-tooth implant after extraction of a maxillary incisor. The status of the buccal bone plate and the time of implant placement were recorded. The pink esthetic score (PES) of each case was evaluated, with a maximum score of 14. In total, 91 patients were included in the study. The mean PES was 10.5. The outcome was considered satisfactory (PES ≥ 8) in 89% and (almost) perfect (PES ≥ 12) in 35% of the cases. Immediate implant placement had no impact on PES (P > .05), even though it demonstrated slightly greater variability. On the other hand, buccal bone defects had a negative effect on PES (P < .0001). In conclusion, a satisfactory esthetic outcome can be achieved in single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla. The presence of buccal bone defects is considered a negative prognostic factor, whereas immediate implant placement does not affect the esthetic outcome.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Sergio Charifker Ribeiro Martins ◽  
Leandro Lecio de Lima Souza ◽  
Karen Christina Soares Tenório ◽  
José Ricardo Mariano ◽  
Ricardo Alberto Heine

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document