Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets

Lee, Won

doi:10.5125/jkaoms.2021.47.1.57

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the aesthetic efect and satisfaction score of patients after implant surgery were further compared, and it was found that the aesthetic efect score and satisfaction score of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were higher than those in conventional surgery group. After minimally invasive implantation, the implanted root can be combined with the alveolar more closely, which is very compatible with human physiological functions, and has the same chewing function as human teeth [22]. Minimally invasive implant surgery can be designed according to the patient's face shape, the condition of the original teeth, etc., and fully consider the coordination of the patient's oral structure [23].…”

Section: Emergency Medicine Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy

Liu

et al. 2023

Emergency Medicine International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To explore the clinical effect and aesthetic evaluation of minimally invasive implant in the treatment of dentition defect. Methods. From April 2020 to May 2021, 60 patients who received implant restoration were collected as the research objects. Randomly divided into minimally invasive surgery group (30 patients) and routine surgery group (30 patients). The postoperative antibiotic use time, pain disappearance time, swelling degree, and pain degree of the two groups were compared. Follow-up for one year, record and compare the success rate of implants and aesthetic evaluation of restoration between the two groups. The evaluation of patients’ satisfaction with restoration was collected and compared. Results. The operation time and antibiotic use time of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were significantly shorter than those in conventional surgery group, and the swelling degree rating was significantly better than that in conventional surgery group, with statistical significance ( P < 0.05 ). The number of patients with no pain (0 degree) and mild pain (degree) in minimally invasive surgery group was significantly higher than that in routine surgery group, and the difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). One year after the repair, the success rate of implants in minimally invasive surgery group was 100.00% compared with that in routine surgery group (93.33%), and the difference was not statistically significant ( P > 0.05 ). The aesthetic effect scores of patients in minimally invasive surgery group were higher than those in routine surgery group in seven items: proximal gingival papilla, distal gingival papilla, labial gingival margin curvature, labial gingival margin height, root convexity, soft tissue color, and soft tissue texture, with statistical significance ( P < 0.05 ). The satisfaction scores of the patients in minimally invasive surgery group in chewing function, comfort, aesthetics, retention function, and language function were higher than those in conventional surgery group, and the differences were statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. Minimally invasive implant can achieve the same effect as conventional implant, and it has the advantages of lower postoperative swelling, shorter pain time, better aesthetic effect, and higher satisfaction after restoration.

show abstract

Section: Emergency Medicine Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy

Liu

et al. 2023

Emergency Medicine International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Any major trauma during the procedure; which causes failure in preservation of hard and soft tissue quality. 40 7. Occurrence of iatrogenic complications: such as sinus membrane perforation, buccal plate fracture, and so forth.…”

Section: Proposal Of a New Classification Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluation of oral hygiene: poor oral hygiene may increase the failure and complications in IIP 5 Any major trauma during the procedure; which causes failure in preservation of hard and soft tissue quality 40 Occurrence of iatrogenic complications: such as sinus membrane perforation, buccal plate fracture, and so forth. Re‐evaluation of buccal bone thickness and bone quality.…”

Section: Proposal Of a New Classification Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single‐rooted extraction socket classification: A systematic review and proposal of a new classification system based on morphologic and patient‐related factors

Sabri

Barootchi

Heck

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taxonomy and classification of a disease contributes to facilitating the diagnosis and treatment planning process and simplifies communication between clinicians. The aim of this study was to provide a critical appraisal based on a systematic review of the single-rooted extraction socket (ES) classifications and subsequently, introduce a new classification system combining the cornerstones of the previously proposed systems and based on the latest consensus in implant dentistry. Following the systematic search process in PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases 13 ES classifications were detected. The most repeated hard and soft tissue factors in the previous classifications were buccal bone dehiscence, interproximal bone, gingival recession, and soft tissue phenotype. However, there was minimal attention to patient-related factors such as systemic conditions and smoking. Therefore, a new classification system based on the combination of patient-related factors, clinical and radiographical parameters was proposed. This divides an ES into three types. Class I and II sockets are candidates for receiving immediate implant placement and conversely, a class III socket includes a compromised condition that requires multiplestage reconstruction mostly suitable for standard delayed implant placement with alveolar ridge preservation. Within the limitations of this study, the new classification system not only provides comprehensive inclusion of various crucial parameters in implant placement (such as prediction of future implant position and osteotomy difficulty, etc.) but also, in contrast to the previously introduced systems, is able to classify the ES prior to extraction and also, takes into the account the patient-related factors as the class modifiers following the extraction.

show abstract

“…In accordance with the established standards used to assess implant success and survival, the level of marginal bone changes during the early time mostly in the first year should be less than 1.5 mm [3][4]. Schulte with Heimke described immediate implants for the first time in 1976 [5][6]. Immediate implants placed in freshly extracted sockets are an alternative treatment instead of conventional dental implants for reducing physiologically resorbed alveolar ridge [7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Crestal Bone Change Following Immediate and Delayed Placement of Dental Implant

2023

JPTCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Resorption of Crestal bone after implant placement is considered one of the most important parameters for implant success. Immediate implant placed in the extraction socket for reducing treatment time. Aim: this study was aiming to make comparison between the immediate and delayed placement of dental implant in the Crestal bone width in bucco-lingual direction clinically and radiographically by using the cone beam computed tomography. Method: A total of fifteen patients with 38 dental implants were taken in the study and they were splitted into two groups: first group of immediate implants had 18 implant cases, on the other hand second group of delayed implant placement included 20 implant cases that placed six to eight weeks after extraction. The space between the buccal and lingual bones was measured clinically and radiographically in the same time of placement of implant and repeated after 6 months, at 2nd stage surgery during abutment placement. Results: Thirty-eight implant in this study, fifteen cases were placed in mandible, and twenty-three cases in the maxilla. At the time of implant placement, the mean distance from buccal to the lingual bone for immediate implant cases was (9.27 mm ∓ SD 1.02) and (8.75 mm ∓ SD 0.77) for delayed implants. CBCT readings showed (8.98 mm ∓ SD 1.01) and (8.51 mm ∓ SD 0.74) respectively. At the second surgery, the mean distance from buccal to the lingual bone was (7.74 mm ∓ SD 0.96) for an immediate

show abstract

Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets

Cited by 13 publications

References 34 publications

Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy

Clinical Effect and Aesthetic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Implant Therapy

Single‐rooted extraction socket classification: A systematic review and proposal of a new classification system based on morphologic and patient‐related factors

Comparison of Crestal Bone Change Following Immediate and Delayed Placement of Dental Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About