Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology
Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryImmediate placement of implants in periapical infected sites: A prospective randomized study in 50 patients
Section snippets
Patients and methods
The present study was performed within the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration for biomedical research involving human subjects. The study was conducted at the department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam.
All patients were given emphasis-placed detailed explanations of the study protocol and were asked to sign surgical consent forms. The primary indication for placement of implants was a maxillary anterior or premolar single-tooth replacement. Fifty
Results
Fifty implants were placed in 50 patients. Mean age in female patients was 39.2 ± 16.1 years versus 40.2 ± 12.9 years for males (P = 0.8). The mean age in the immediate-placed implant group (IP) was 39.9 ± 16.2 years compared with 39.5 ± 12.9 for the delay-placed implants group (DP; P = 0.92). Figure 1 shows the length and the diameter of the implants in the 2 groups. In the IP group, larger diameter implants (5.5 and 6.5) were placed, compared with those placed in the DP group.
Thirty-two (64%)
Discussion
Immediate placement of endosseous implants into extraction sockets to reduce the process of alveolar bone resorption and treatment time has been propagated by several authors.1, 12 However, few clinical data are available on the immediate placement in chronic periapical infected sites. To our knowledge, the present study was the first controlled comparison between immediate and delayed placement of implants for replacement of teeth with periapical lesions. Some authors consider placement of
Conclusion
Within the limits of the present study, immediate placement of single tooth implants for replacement of teeth with periapical lesions was a predictable treatment. Implant success, mean ISQ, and radiographic bone level at 1-year follow-up were not related to the periapical microbial flora. However, a delayed implant protocol might be considered in the aesthetic zone due to the recession at the level of the mid-buccal gingiva.
References (23)
- et al.
Role of T cells in the pathogenesis of periapical lesions. A preliminary report
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol
(1993) Endodontic infections: concepts, paradigms, and perspectives
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
(2002)- et al.
Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants. An experimental study in rabbits
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
(1997) Immediate implant placement into extraction sites: surgical and restorative advantages
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
(1989)- et al.
Immediate implants placed into infected sites: a clinical report
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
(1995) - et al.
Immediate implants placed into infected sites: a histomorphometric study in dogs
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
(1998) - et al.
Survival of human dental plaque flora in various transport media
Appl Microbiol
(1972) - et al.
The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria for success
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
(1986) - et al.
Implant stability measurement of delayed and immediately loaded implants during healing
Clin Oral Impl Res
(2004) Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
(1997)
Combinations of bacterial species in endodontic infections
Int Endodod J
Cited by (207)
Immediate implant placement in compromised sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2023, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry