The use of a polycaprolactone-tricalcium phosphate scaffold for bone regeneration of tooth socket facial wall defects and simultaneous immediate dental implant placement inMacaca fascicularis

2013 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 1379-1388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bee Tin Goh ◽  
Nattharee Chanchareonsook ◽  
Henk Tideman ◽  
Swee Hin Teoh ◽  
James Kwok Fai Chow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Tricalcium Phosphate ◽  
Tooth Socket ◽  
Implant Placement

Histological evaluation on bone regeneration of dental implant placement sites grafted with a self-setting α-tricalcium phosphate cement

2008 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masayoshi Nakadate ◽  
Norio Amizuka ◽  
Minqi Li ◽  
Paulo H.L. Freitas ◽  
Kimimitsu Oda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Tricalcium Phosphate ◽  
Histological Evaluation ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals Preservation or reconstruction of the Peri-implant bone- A Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-146
Author(s):  
Shamila Shetty K ◽  
◽  
R.K Nishith ◽  
R.K Nishith ◽  
Misha Rose Mathew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Alveolar Ridge ◽  
Missing Teeth ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Biophysical Process ◽  
Implant Therapy ◽  
Teeth Extraction

The main biological and biophysical process that has made dental implant therapy predictably successful for replacing missing teeth is Osseointegration. Teeth extraction is done for several purposes, often without any consideration for the preservation of the alveolar ridge. Alveolar bone post-extraction changes have been estimated to cause a 50% decrease in alveolar bone buccolingual width, and a further loss in height. This review will go through various techniques of ARP and bone regeneration techniques and explore the best way to obtain the best outcomes after implant placement.

Is perioperative antibiotic necessary in straightforward implant placement procedures?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elçin Bedeloğlu ◽  
Mustafa Yalçın ◽  
Cenker Zeki Koyuncuoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Clavulanic Acid ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Amoxicillin Clavulanic Acid ◽  
Experimental Group

The purpose of this non-random retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of prophylactic antibiotic on early outcomes including postoperative pain, swelling, bleeding and cyanosis in patients undergoing dental implant placement before prosthetic loading. Seventy-five patients (45 males, 30 females) whose dental implant placement were completed, included to the study. Patients used prophylactic antibiotics were defined as the experimental group and those who did not, were defined as the control group. The experimental group received 2 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid 1 h preoperatively and 1 g amoxicillin + clavulanic acid twice a day for 5 days postoperatively while the control group had received no prophylactic antibiotic therapy perioperatively. Data on pain, swelling, bleeding, cyanosis, flap dehiscence, suppuration and implant failure were analyzed on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12. No statistically significant difference was detected between the two groups with regard to pain and swelling on postoperative days 2, 7, and 14 and week 12 ( p >0.05), while the severity of pain and swelling were greater on day 2 compared to day 7 and 14 and week 12 in both groups ( p =0.001 and p <0.05, respectively). Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to postoperative bleeding and cyanosis. Although flap dehiscence was more severe on day 7 in the experimental group, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the percentage of flap dehiscence assessed at other time points. Within limitations of the study, it has been demonstrated that antibiotic use has no effect on implant failure rates in dental implant surgery with a limited number of implants. We conclude that perioperative antibiotic use may not be required in straightforward implant placement procedures. Further randomized control clinical studies with higher numbers of patients and implants are needed to substantiate our findings.

Dental Implant Placement in Patients with a History of Medications Related to Osteonecrosis of the Jaws: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judd Sher ◽  
Kate Kirkham-Ali ◽  
Denny Luo ◽  
Catherine Miller ◽  
Dileep Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Drug Therapy ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bisphosphonate Treatment ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
History Of

The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases were used to search for clinical studies (English only) to July 16, 2019. Study quality was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series. A broad search strategy resulted in the identification of 7542 studies. There were 28 studies reporting on bisphosphonates (5 cohort, 6 case control, and 17 case series) and one study reporting on denosumab (case series) that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The quality assessment revealed an overall moderate quality of evidence among the studies. Results demonstrated that patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis are not at increased risk of implant failure in terms of osseointegration. However, all patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment, whether taken orally for osteoporosis or intravenously for malignancy, appear to be at risk of ‘implant surgery-triggered’ MRONJ. In contrast, the risk of MRONJ in patients treated with denosumab for osteoporosis was found to be negligible. In conclusion, general and specialist dentists should exercise caution when planning dental implant therapy in patients with a history of bisphosphonate and denosumab drug therapy. Importantly, all patients with a history of bisphosphonates are at risk of MRONJ, necessitating this to be included in the informed consent obtained prior to implant placement. The James Cook University College of Medicine and Dentistry Honours program and the Australian Dental Research Foundation Colin Cormie Grant were the primary sources of funding for this systematic review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document