scholarly journals Alveolar ridge preservation and early implant placement at maxillary central incisor sites: A prospective case series study

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 803-813
Author(s):  
Stephen T. Chen ◽  
Ivan Darby
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroliene M. Meijndert ◽  
Gerry M. Raghoebar ◽  
Arjan Vissink ◽  
Henny J. A. Meijer

Abstract Background Clinical studies of single-tooth replacement in compromised bone using bone level tapered implants in the aesthetic zone are scarce. Aim To assess clinically, radiographically and aesthetically over 1 year the performance of a bone level tapered implant in the maxillary aesthetic zone in sites after alveolar ridge preservation. Material and methods Thirty patients (16 male, 14 female) with a failing tooth and large bone defect after removal received alveolar ridge preservation. After 3 months, implants were placed with immediate provisionalization. Definitive restorations were placed after 3 months. The treatment was evaluated 1 year following the definitive restoration. Results All the patients attended the 1-year follow-up. One implant was lost (96.7% implant survival rate). The mean implant stability quotient value was 68.9 ± 8.74 at implant placement. The mean marginal bone level change was minor (− 0.07 ± 0.12 mm). The mean mid-buccal mucosa changed with + 0.01 ± 0.45 mm. The median Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score after 1 year were 6 [4; 7] and 8 [7; 9], respectively. The patients’ mean overall satisfaction (0–100 VAS scale) was 86.6 ± 10.3. Conclusion Bone level tapered implants with immediate provisionalization perform well after alveolar ridge preservation in the maxillary aesthetic zone, according to implant stability, clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient-centred outcomes. Trial registration NTR, NL8755. Registered on 1 January 2016


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwantae Noh ◽  
Daniel S. Thoma ◽  
Jung-Chul Park ◽  
Dong-Woon Lee ◽  
Seung-Yun Shin ◽  
...  

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filipe Jaeger ◽  
Gustavo Marques Chiavaioli ◽  
Guilherme Lacerda de Toledo ◽  
Belini Freire-Maia ◽  
Marcio Bruno Figueiredo Amaral ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Avila-Ortiz ◽  
M. Gubler ◽  
M. Romero-Bustillos ◽  
C.L. Nicholas ◽  
M.B. Zimmerman ◽  
...  

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).


2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 2882-2889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Molina‐Leyva ◽  
Ana Almodovar‐Real ◽  
Jose C. Ruiz‐Carrascosa ◽  
Ramon Naranjo‐Sintes ◽  
Salvio Serrano‐Ortega ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document