scholarly journals Characterization of Mandibular First Molar Extraction Space for Dental Implant Placement Using CBCT Imaging – A Retrospective Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-17
Author(s):  
Dler A. Khursheed ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Mandibular First Molar ◽  
Molar Extraction

scholarly journals Dental implant placement in a specialized clinic – A 3‐year retrospective analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (S19) ◽  
pp. 495-495
Author(s):  
Balazs Feher ◽  
Florian Karg ◽  
Reinhard Gruber ◽  
Christian Ulm ◽  
Kuchler Ulrike
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Implant Placement

Dental Implant Replacement of the Mandibular First Molar Tooth in a Dog

2003 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Ruhnau ◽  
Tom Olsen ◽  
Vibeke Greven ◽  
Katarina Nielsen ◽  
Kirsten Herbild
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Clinical Applications ◽  
Molar Tooth ◽  
German Shepherd ◽  
German Shepherd Dog ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Periodontal Inflammation ◽  
Implant System ◽  
Mandibular First Molar

A new dental implant system was used to replace the mandibular right first molar tooth in an eleven-month-old mole/intact, utility trained German shepherd dog. The permanent mandibular right first molar tooth had been extracted as treatment for an extensive carious lesion when the dog was 9-months of age. There were no complications associated with placement of the dental implant. However, peri-implant osteomyelitis occurred secondary to a traumatic oral wound 6-months following implant placement. The 17-month postoperative examination indicated that the implant system used in this case could be maintained in a working dog that uses extreme bite forces. However, periodontal inflammation and vertical bone loss exposing the implant fixtures were noted during oral examination. Further clinical applications are required to determine if the periodontal inflammation and vertical bone loss noted in this case were complications associated with the implant, maturity of bone at the time of implant fixture placement, general biting/chewing forces placed on carnassial teeth, or the oral trauma that occurred 6-months following implant placement.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Miniscrews in Gaining Prosthetic Space for a Dental Implant to Replace the Mandibular First Molar: A Case Series

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 607
Author(s):  
Ana Roig-Vanaclocha ◽  
Naia Bustamante-Hernández ◽  
Maria Fernanda Solá-Ruíz ◽  
Carla Fons-Badal ◽  
Eduardo Selva-Otaolaurruchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Strong Correlation ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Second Molar ◽  
Early Loss ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Single Crown ◽  
Two Parameters ◽  
Mandibular First Molar

Background: The objective of this case series was to evaluate the efficacy of miniscrews to upright the lower second molar as a result of early loss of the lower first molar in order to permit rehabilitation by means of an implant-supported single crown. Methods: The case series included ten patients who each received a miniscrew placed distal of the second molar in order to straighten the tooth; the prosthetic space gained (sufficient to allow implant placement in the edentulous space) and the change in angulation obtained were analyzed. The changes produced by miniscrews were evaluated in radiographs. Results: Statistical analysis identified significant improvements in angulation (p = 0.005) and significant amounts of space gained (p = 0.005) as well as a strong correlation between these two parameters (r = −0.93; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The use of miniscrews alone without the intervention of other orthodontic methods to straighten a mesialized lower second molar in order to replace a missing first molar with an implant significantly improves both the angulation of the molar and the prosthetic space available.

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 &gt;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 &lt;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