A prospective, controlled clinical trial evaluating the clinical radiological and aesthetic outcome after 5 years of immediately placed implants in sockets exhibiting periapical pathology.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the clinical, aesthetic and radiological outcome of immediately placed implants in sockets with or without periapical pathology 5 years after placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients were followed 5 years after immediate implant placement (test-group: 12 patients with periapical pathologies; control-group: 15 patients without periapical pathology). Clinical (FMBS, FMPS, CAL, keratinized mucosa), aesthetical (length of clinical crown, Papilla index), and radiological (vertical distance implant shoulder to first bone to implant contact (IS-BIC)) parameters were assessed. Both 95% confidence intervals, as well as results of statistical tests (one-sample, two-sample, paired t-test) were provided. RESULTS: After 5 years the implant survival rate was 100% for all 27 implants. In the test group the width of the keratinized mucosa increased significantly over the observation period (0.8 ± 1.0 mm). Concerning aesthetic parameters at the 3-month as well as at the 5-year examination no statistically significant difference could be found between the two groups. In the control-group the papilla mesial and distal to the implant increased statistically significant during the observation period by 0.5 ± 0.5 and 0.4 ± 0.6 index score points, respectively. The position of the gingival margin at the implant site and the two neighboring teeth remained stable. At the 5-year visit IS-BIC measured between 1.4 ± 0.5 mm (mesial, control) and 1.7 ± 0.7 mm (distal, test), no significant difference could be found between the two groups. Over the observation period no statistically significant change of IS-BIC could be found in the test- as well as in the control-group. None of the examined radiographs revealed any signs of retrograde peri-implantitis. CONCLUSION: The replacement of teeth exhibiting periapical pathologies by implants placed immediately after tooth extraction can be a successful treatment modality with no disadvantages in clinical, aesthetical and radiological parameters to immediately placed implants into healthy sockets.

A prospective, controlled clinical trial evaluating the clinical and radiological outcome after 3 years of immediately placed implants in sockets exhibiting periapical pathology.

OBJECTIVES: the aim of the present study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of immediately placed implants in sockets with or without periapical pathology 3 years after implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: twenty-nine patients with immediate implant placement were clinically and radiologically followed 3 years after implant placement (test group: 16 patients without periapical pathology, control group: 13 patients with periapical pathologies). Clinical (full-mouth bleeding score, full-mouth plaque score, clinical attachment level measurements and width of keratinized mucosa buccaly of the implant) and radiological parameters (vertical distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone-to-implant contact [IS-BIC]) were assessed. Both 95% confidence intervals, as well as results of statistical tests (one-sample, two-sample and paired t-test) were provided. RESULTS: the implant survival rate was 100% for all 29 implants after 3 years. The clinical and radiological parameters showed no statistically significant difference between the test and the control group at 3 years (two-sample t-test). The IS-BIC was between 1.54 ± 0.88 mm (mesial, test) and 1.69 ± 0.92 mm (distal, test). Between the 1- and 3-year visit the IS-BIC increased in both groups significantly on one side of the implant: 0.30 ± 0.37 mm (mesial, test) and 0.33 ± 0.43 mm (distal, control) (one-sample t-test). None of the 13 examined radiographs of implants immediately placed in sockets with periapical pathologies revealed retrograde peri-implantitis after 3 years. CONCLUSION: it is concluded within the limitations of this study, that after careful debridement of the extraction socket, immediate placement of implants into sites with periapical pathologies can be a successful treatment modality for at least 3 years with no disadvantages in clinical and radiological parameters to immediately placed implants into healthy sockets.

Clinical and radiographic comparison of implants in regenerated or native bone: 5-year results.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test whether or not implants associated with bone regeneration show the same survival and success rates as implants placed in native bone in patients requiring both forms of therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients (median age of 60.3 years, range 18-77.7 years) had been treated 5 years before the follow-up examination. Machined screw-type implants were inserted following one of two surgical procedures: (1) simultaneously with a guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure, which involved grafting with xenogenic bone substitute material, autogenous bone or a mixture of the two and defect covering with a bio-absorbable collagen membrane (test) and (2) standard implantation procedure without bone regeneration (control). For data recording, one test and one control implant from each patient were assessed. Examination included measurements of plaque control record (PCR), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), width of keratinized mucosa (KM), frequency of situations with supra-mucosal location of the crown margin, implant survival assessment and radiographic examination. Radiographs were digitized to assess the marginal bone level (MBL). Differences between groups were tested using the one-sample t-test. The estimation of survival rate was based on Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: The follow-up period of the 34 GBR and 34 control implants ranged from 49 to 70 months (median time 57 months). Cumulative survival rates reached 100% for the GBR group and 94.1% for the control group without statistical significance. No statistically significant differences for clinical and radiographic parameters were found between the two groups regarding PCR, BOP, PPD, KM and MBL. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that, clinically, implants placed with concomitant bone regeneration did not performed differently from implants placed into native bone with respect to implant survival, marginal bone height and peri-implant soft tissue parameters.

Postextraction tissue management: a soft tissue punch technique.

The aim of this prospective clinical study was to analyze graft-enhanced soft tissue healing during the initial phases after tooth extraction. Twenty patients in need of tooth extraction (incisors, canines, and premolars) and implant replacement were included. In patients with multiple extractions, one tooth was randomly selected for treatment. After administration of antibiotics, the selected tooth was gently removed. The socket was completely filled with deproteinized bovine bone mineral integrated in a 10% collagen matrix to fill out the space of the alveolus and support the soft tissue. A biopsy punch with a diameter corresponding to the socket orifice was chosen to harvest a free gingival graft of 2- to 3-mm thickness from the palate. The punched graft was carefully sutured to the deepithelialized soft tissue margins of the socket. One week after graft insertion, 64.3% of the mean graft area was fully integrated, 35.6% was fibrinoid, and 0.1% showed necrotic parts. Three and 6 weeks postsurgery, the mean integrated graft surface increased to 92.3% and 99.7%, respectively. After 6 weeks, a mean of 0.3% of the surface in four grafts showed incomplete wound closure, and no fibrin or necrosis was present. Colorimetry of the graft and adjacent tissue revealed a mean color match of deltaE = 2.91, lower than the critical threshold of 3.7 for intraoral visibility of different colors. This soft tissue punch technique led to successful biologic and esthetic integration of the transplanted graft into the local host tissues.

Replacement of teeth exhibiting periapical pathology by immediate implants: a prospective, controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to test whether or not immediate implantation leads to more biological complications, when performed at extraction sockets of teeth exhibiting periapical pathology compared with teeth not exhibiting periapical pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 17 consecutively admitted patients, immediate implant placement was planned in order to replace single teeth exhibiting periapical pathology (test group). These teeth demonstrated pain, periapical radiolucency, fistula, suppuration or a combination of these findings. Another 17 consecutively admitted patients in need of single tooth replacement in the absence of periapical pathology served as the control group. Implant placement and accompanying bone regeneration were performed according to standard clinical procedures. Implants were loaded after a healing period of 3 months. Clinical and radiographical parameters were assessed at the time of implant placement (baseline) and at 12 months thereafter. RESULTS: Out of the 34 patients, four test and one control patient had to be withdrawn from the study due to the inability to obtain primary implant stability. The residual 29 implants revealed a survival rate of 100% 1 year after placement. Clinical and radiographical differences between 12 months and baseline comparing test and control groups showed no statistical significances for any of the parameters assessed. Within test and control groups there was a statistically significant loss of vertical bone height at the adjacent teeth (mesial test=0.4+/-0.6 mm, control=0.4+/-0.5 mm; distal test=0.3+/-0.2 mm, control=0.7+/-0.8 mm) as well as at the implant site (mesial test=1.9+/-1.4 mm, control=1.8+/-1.1 mm; distal test=1.7+/-1.4 mm, control=1.6+/-1.1 mm) and of buccal keratinized mucosa (test=-2.2+/-1.2 mm; control=-1.3+/-1.6 mm) between baseline and 12 months. During the first 13 weeks of healing, two sites of the test and one site of the control group showed signs of infection, which required intervention. Neither the incident of early exit nor of signs of infection was statistically significantly different between the test and the control group (Mann-Whitney U test). CONCLUSION: It is concluded that for those implants where primary stability was achieved, the immediate implant placement performed at extraction sockets exhibiting periapical pathology did not lead to an increased rate of complications and rendered an equally favorable type of tissue integration of the implants in both groups. Implant placement into such sites can, therefore, be successfully performed.