An infected jawbone site compromising successful osseointegration

Quirynen, Marc; Gijbels, Frieda; Jacobs, Reinhilde

doi:10.1046/j.0906-6713.2002.03311.x

Cited by 94 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 It should be kept in mind that implant failure has been shown to be closely related to local bone characteristics and previous inflammation (such as a chronic apical inflammatory lesion resulting in a local osteosclerotic scar or a remnant osteolytic lesion). 9 Another factor of importance may be intravenously administered bisphosphonates. Indeed, Marx 10 indicated that bisphosphonates prevent renewal of old and injured bone, thus making it brittle and more prone to fracture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?

Pauwels

Jacobs²,

Singer³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

319

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CBCT is a widely applied imaging modality in dentistry. It enables the visualization of highcontrast structures of the oral region (bone, teeth, air cavities) at a high resolution. CBCT is now commonly used for the assessment of bone quality, primarily for pre-operative implant planning. Traditionally, bone quality parameters and classifications were primarily based on bone density, which could be estimated through the use of Hounsfield units derived from multidetector CT (MDCT) data sets. However, there are crucial differences between MDCT and CBCT, which complicates the use of quantitative gray values (GVs) for the latter. From experimental as well as clinical research, it can be seen that great variability of GVs can exist on CBCT images owing to various reasons that are inherently associated with this technique (i.e. the limited field size, relatively high amount of scattered radiation and limitations of currently applied reconstruction algorithms). Although attempts have been made to correct for GV variability, it can be postulated that the quantitative use of GVs in CBCT should be generally avoided at this time. In addition, recent research and clinical findings have shifted the paradigm of bone quality from a density-based analysis to a structural evaluation of the bone. The ever-improving image quality of CBCT allows it to display trabecular bone patterns, indicating that it may be possible to apply structural analysis methods that are commonly used in micro-CT and histology.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?

Pauwels

Jacobs²,

Singer³

et al. 2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

319

228

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The phenomenon of bone resorption is more pronounced in the anterior maxilla, where ridge resorption often creates an unfavorable palato labial discrepancy between the implant and the prosthesis [2]. Horizontal reductions of up to 50% (5-7 mm) were observed during the first year following single tooth extraction [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several studies that have successfully placed implants in infected sites [1][2][3][4][5][6]; however, all these studies removed granulation tissue before placing the implant as a part of their clinical protocol [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. In this study, the implants were placed in infected sites without curettage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The difference between the control group and the group with periapical radiolucency was not statistically significant. Therefore, the only disadvantage of the placement of implants into fresh extraction sockets with periapical lesions is that it can potentially contaminate implant during the initial healing period because of remnants of the infection [2][3][4][5][6]. Infected, non-restorable teeth are indicated for extraction, and immediate replacement with endosseous dental implant is contraindicated8 due to the risk of microbial interference with the healing process [29][30][31][32].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immediate implant placement in the infected sockets - A case series

Panjali¹

2017

Dent Oral Craniofac Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question whether an implant could be placed in an infected site has often been raised and addressed in the literature by several authors. There are several studies that have successfully placed implants in infected sites [1][2][3][4][5][6]; however, all these studies removed granulation tissue before placing the implant as a part of their clinical protocol [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. In this study, the implants were placed in infected sites without curettage.A prospective clinical study was done with a total of 10 cases. The selected infected, maxillary anterior teeth presented with either chronic or acute periapical lesions with poor to a hopeless prognosis. A standardized surgical and prosthetic protocol was developed. Implants were placed and cases were evaluated at six-month follow-up. Using pre-and postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), data were collected [16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. The result reflects and confirms the hypothesis that endosteal implants can be successfully integrated in infected sites. However, alveolar ridge resorption after the tooth extraction is a frequent occurrence and may significantly reduce the residual bone volume [23][24][25][26][27][28]. This study is a proof of principle that sockets can heal naturally with immediately placed implants in infected sites and tissue shrinkage can be reduced by utilizing least invasive surgical and prosthetic protocol.

show abstract

“…Ayrıca implant yapılmadan önce çekilen dişlerin etrafında endodontik lezyonun var olmasının apikal periimplantitis meydana gelen implantların kaybolma insidansını 3 kat artırdığını rapor etmişlerdir 13 . Başka bir çalışmada 2 ay sonunda %92'den %100'e kadar implant başarı oranı rapor edilmiştir.…”

Section: Enfekte Bölgelerunclassified

İmplant Tedavi̇si̇ni̇n Prognozunu Etki̇leyen Lokal Ri̇sk Faktörleri̇

Peker¹,

Karaca²

2015

Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An infected jawbone site compromising successful osseointegration

Cited by 94 publications

References 30 publications

CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?

CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable?

Immediate implant placement in the infected sockets - A case series

İmplant Tedavi̇si̇ni̇n Prognozunu Etki̇leyen Lokal Ri̇sk Faktörleri̇

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About