[Usefulness of hydroxyapatite implants for the management of alveolar bone lesions at tooth hemisection sites].

INTRODUCTION

Hemisection is a surgical method for treating lesions of two- and multi-rooted teeth. This procedure includes amputation of one or two lesioned roots together with the attached dental crown, leaving an endodontically treated root and the remaining dental crown prepared for future prosthetic restoration. The results of this study demonstrate that HA Biocer implants create optimal conditions for new bone growth.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

The study was done in 51 patients after hemisection treated with HA Biocer in the form of granules implanted into the alveolus. The control group consisted of 45 patients without an alloplastic implant. The following indices were assessed: radiological index of alveolar bone atrophy in the maxilla and mandible according to Engelberger, Marthaler and Rateischak [EMR]; gingival pocket depth with WHO 621 probe; tooth mobility index according to Entin; root denudation index according to Cieszyfiski; bacterial plaque index (P1.1.) according to Silness and Löe. Measurements were done before hemisection and were repeated after 1.5, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months thereafter. It was found that hydroxyapatite implants improved the condition of the hemisected tooth and arrested the destruction process in the alveolar bone.

RESULTS

(1) In the study group (HA Biocer), no bone atrophy was noted in the root region after hemisection, whereas bone loss in the control group reached 11%. (2) The depth of gingival pockets in the study group was half of the depth in the control group. (3) Significant tooth stabilization was achieved in the study group, mainly during the first two years after implantation. Improved tooth stability was noted three times less often in the control group during the same period. (4) Root denudation diminished in patients treated with HA Biocer and increased or remained unchanged in controls. (5) A steady decrease in mean P1.1. index values was observed in both groups over the five-year follow-up period. However, the mean P1.1. value in the study group was one-third of the value in the control group.