Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2023
Immediate implant placement in single mandibular molar with chronic periapical periodontitis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Gao Yudong, Luo Dan, Yuan Mujie, Yang Yanhao, Yang Jianjun
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The present study aims to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of immediate implant placement in the mandibular molar region with or without the presence of chronic periapical periodontitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Employing a case-control design, this study encompassed a cohort of patients necessitating implant surgery to supplant a single, failed mandibular molar. Participants exhibiting periapical lesions measuring between > 4 mm and < 8 mm were assigned to the test group, while those without periapical lesions to the control group. Subsequent to flap surgery and tooth extraction, extraction sockets were debrided thoroughly, and implants were immediately implanted (baseline). Permanent restorative procedures were carried out three months post-operation, with follow-up conducted one year post-surgery. During the study period, parameters including implant survival rate, Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT) data, implant stability quotient (ISQ), insertional torque values (ITV), and potential complications were closely monitored.
RESULTS: Throughout the yearlong observation period subsequent to implant placement, both groups exhibited a 100% implant survival rate. None of the participants experienced any complications. Both groups demonstrated significant decreases in the height and width of the alveolar bone (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically discernible differences between corresponding areas in the two groups (P > 0.05). The differences in ITV between the test group (37.94 ± 2.12 N•cm) and the control group (38.55 ± 2.71 N•cm) were not statistically significant at baseline (P > 0.05). A significant rise in ISQ was noted within the same group between baseline and three months post-operation (P < 0.05), while no significant variations in ISQ changes were noted between the two groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Given the constraints of this investigation, the preliminary clinical outcomes of immediate implant placement in the mandibular molar region with chronic periapical periodontitis do not significantly differ from those observed in instances devoid of chronic periapical periodontitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Employing a case-control design, this study encompassed a cohort of patients necessitating implant surgery to supplant a single, failed mandibular molar. Participants exhibiting periapical lesions measuring between > 4 mm and < 8 mm were assigned to the test group, while those without periapical lesions to the control group. Subsequent to flap surgery and tooth extraction, extraction sockets were debrided thoroughly, and implants were immediately implanted (baseline). Permanent restorative procedures were carried out three months post-operation, with follow-up conducted one year post-surgery. During the study period, parameters including implant survival rate, Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT) data, implant stability quotient (ISQ), insertional torque values (ITV), and potential complications were closely monitored.
RESULTS: Throughout the yearlong observation period subsequent to implant placement, both groups exhibited a 100% implant survival rate. None of the participants experienced any complications. Both groups demonstrated significant decreases in the height and width of the alveolar bone (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically discernible differences between corresponding areas in the two groups (P > 0.05). The differences in ITV between the test group (37.94 ± 2.12 N•cm) and the control group (38.55 ± 2.71 N•cm) were not statistically significant at baseline (P > 0.05). A significant rise in ISQ was noted within the same group between baseline and three months post-operation (P < 0.05), while no significant variations in ISQ changes were noted between the two groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Given the constraints of this investigation, the preliminary clinical outcomes of immediate implant placement in the mandibular molar region with chronic periapical periodontitis do not significantly differ from those observed in instances devoid of chronic periapical periodontitis.