Microcomputed Tomographic Analysis of the Alveolar Ridge Alteration around Extraction Sites with and without Immediate Implants Placement: In Vivo Study

Abstract

With the exception of Group 1 (ESC-I), immediate implant placement did not prevent or minimize bone remodeling in extraction sites according to ESC.

Dimensional changes of hard and soft tissue after immediate implantation in comparison with conventional tooth extraction

“…Quirynen 7 evaluated 351 studies and reported that failure of immediate implantation hd been less than 5 percent, and if these implants were loaded immediately the percentage would increase. In a study ,Lindhe et al 8 concluded that immediate implantation did not have the ability to prevent the ridge atrophy after tooth extraction, and both buccal and lingual bones resorbed to some extent leading to marginal loss of marginal osteointegration and recession which was more pronouncec at buccal than lingual aspect.In a study conducted by Botticelli 9 on 21 recently extracted teeth, it was shown that, 4 months after immediate implantation, ridge remodeling could not be prevented completely, although in this study no grafting material and membrane were used to fill the space between the bone and implant , this results was similar toAlHezaimiet al 10 reports that concluded immediate implant placement did not prevent or minimize bone remodeling in extraction sites. furthermoreAraujo 11 evaluated The efficacy bone graft in the buccal gap around the immediate implant that indicated Bio-oss Collagen modified the process of hard tissue healing, and improved the level of marginal bone-to-implant contact.…”

Fresh extraction socket: spontaneous healing vs. immediate implant placement

“…Indeed, Evans & Chen (Evans & Chen 2008) observed that buccally placed implants resulted in three times more soft tissue recession than palatally placed immediate implants. Another point of consideration when comparing the results from this experimental study from those reported in clinical studies on single-tooth immediate implants is that the experimental sites in this experimental study were adjacent extraction sockets, what may accentuate the magnitude of vertical buccal bone resorption, as it has been reported in clinical (Johnson 1969) and radiographical studies (Al-Hezaimi et al 2014;Al-Shabeeb et al 2012).…”

Recombinant human BMP9 (RhBMP9) in comparison with rhBMP2 for ridge augmentation following tooth extraction: An experimental study in the Beagle dog

“…Nevertheless, no significant differences were found in the total width of the alveolar ridge following extraction of two premolars in the maxilla (3.66 mm) as compared to the mandible (3.33 mm) (Al‐Askar et al, ). Several studies thus assessed the healing of the extraction socket in the maxilla (Araujo, Liljenberg, & Lindhe, ; Arruda, Sukekava, Souza, Rasmusson, & Araujo, ; Takahashi et al, ) and more lately even on both mandible and maxilla (Al‐Hezaimi et al, ; Al‐Shabeeb et al, ; Lindhe et al, ; Santos et al, ) Distinctly, the area of measurement in the latter study (Lee, Jung, et al, ) included whole extraction sockets, while in the present study, it was limited to the ROI. A major portion of this ROI typically consisted of particles embedded in fibrous connective tissue around DBBM particles (Fickl et al, ).…”