Abstract
Introduction: Immediate implantation in single-root teeth has been claimed to possess some benefits, especially bone preservation. The aim of this study was to evaluate ridge changes after immediate implantation in comparison with tooth extraction and dental socket healing.Methods and Materials: In this study, 21 patients with hopeless single-root teeth were selected. After impression and cast making, the patients were divided into test and control groups. Each group included twelve dental sockets. For all teeth the extraction was performed atraumatically. Measurements included bucco-lingual ridge dimensions at 3mm and 7mm apical to an imaginary line connecting the CEJs of the two adjacent teeth (CEJ line) as well as vertical distance between the mentioned line and bone crest at the misobuccal, midbuccal, distobuccal, mesiopalatal, midpalatal, and distopalatal aspects. In addition, soft tissue measurements similar to hard tissue ones were taken using stone casts and acrylic stents. In test group immediate implantation was carried out following extraction whereas in the control group dental sockets were left for natural healing. Four months after the operation, in both groups, the flap was reflected and measurements taken at baseline were repeated.Results: Vertical changes of soft tissues in test group were significantly less than control group at all points except in mid-buccal aspect (p=0.033 for mesiobuccal, p=0.026 for distobuccal, p=0.004 for midpalatal, p=0.002 mesiopalatal, p=0.022 for distopalatal, p=0.016 for distal, p=0.048 for mesial). Horizontal dimension change of soft tissue at 7mm apical to the CEJ line in test group, were also significantly less than control group (p= 0.051). Vertical changes of hard tissue, measured in all points, in test group were less than those of control group. These changes were significant in mid-buccal, mid-palatal, mesiopalatal and distopalatal points (p= 0.046, 0.029, 0.020 and 0.026 respectively). Horizontal changes of hard tissue at 3mm and 7mm apical to the CEJ line in test group were also less than control group. However, this was significant only at the 3mm point (p=0.028).Conclusion: According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that immediate implantation is to some extent effective in reducing the expected vertical and horizontal bone and soft tissue changes occurring following conventional tooth extraction and natural socket healing. Further investigation is warranted to determine the optimum method of preventing these changes.Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.15(3) 2016 p.335-342
Highlights
Immediate implantation in single-root teeth has been claimed to possess some benefits, especially bone preservation
Immediate implantation is done at the time of tooth extraction
Verticalhard tissue recession took place Our data indicated that some bone at all study teeth after 4 months. This held true for resorption took place in the immediate implantation both test and control groups
Summary
Introduction : Repair of extraction socket is always accompanied by the loss of width and height of alveolar ridge. A possible disadvantages of immediate implantation include the possible need to mucogingival surgery (to correct the repositioned tissues because of flaps) and bone graft (to fill the empty spaces around the implant).[3] Chen et al.[4] reviewed immediate implantation and concluded that this method leads to preservation of socket and surrounding jawbones and prevention of jawbones atrophy. Another conclusion was that the survival rate and clinical advantages of both immediate and conventional implantations are similar. At the distal and mesial aspects the vertical distance betweenn the CEJ of the adjacent tooth and the proximal socket bone crest was
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
