Implant dentistry · 2013
Buccal bone crest dynamics after immediate implant placement and ridge preservation techniques: review of morphometric studies in animals.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Viña-Almunia Jose, Candel-Martí Maria E, Cervera-Ballester Juan, García-Mira Berta, Calvo-Guirado Jose L, Peñarrocha-Oltra David, Peñarrocha-Diago Miguel
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To review morphometric studies performed in animals assessing the dynamics of the buccal bone crest after immediate implant placement and ridge preservation techniques.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A bibliographic search in PubMed was performed. Studies that analyzed morphometrically in animals the buccal bone crest dynamics after immediate implant placement or ridge preservation techniques were included. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: Immediate implant placement does not prevent the resorption of the buccal bone crest. To minimize this resorption, 2 mm width of the buccal bone crest, palatal/lingual implant placement, and an adequate implant diameter for the width of the ridge are required. The regeneration of the gap after immediate implant placement limits the resorption of the buccal bone crest. Flap elevation and implant surface showed no relation with this resorption. Ridge preservation techniques associated with mucogingival surgery minimize buccal bone crest resorption. Biomaterials are more effective than autograft.
CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement does not prevent the resorption of the buccal bone crest after dental extraction. Ridge preservation techniques minimize this resorption.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A bibliographic search in PubMed was performed. Studies that analyzed morphometrically in animals the buccal bone crest dynamics after immediate implant placement or ridge preservation techniques were included. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS: Immediate implant placement does not prevent the resorption of the buccal bone crest. To minimize this resorption, 2 mm width of the buccal bone crest, palatal/lingual implant placement, and an adequate implant diameter for the width of the ridge are required. The regeneration of the gap after immediate implant placement limits the resorption of the buccal bone crest. Flap elevation and implant surface showed no relation with this resorption. Ridge preservation techniques associated with mucogingival surgery minimize buccal bone crest resorption. Biomaterials are more effective than autograft.
CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement does not prevent the resorption of the buccal bone crest after dental extraction. Ridge preservation techniques minimize this resorption.