Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2014
Peri-implant bone response following immediate implants placed in the esthetic zone and with immediate provisionalization--a case series study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Martin Carolina, Thomé Geninho, Melo Ana Cláudia Moreira, Fontão Flavia Noemy Gasparini Kiatake
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this case series was to evaluate success and peri-implant bone response around Morse taper immediate implants with an immediate provisionalization.
METHODS: Twelve immediate implants were inserted in the maxilla of nine consecutively treated patients. Proximal bone response was evaluated with digital periapical radiographs, and the buccal wall height and width were evaluated with computed tomography.
RESULTS: A slight decrease in the marginal bone crest (0.14 ± 0.41 mm) at the mesial face and an increase (0.07 ± 1.58 mm) at the distal face were observed. Considering the point where bone tissue meets the implant surface, there was a statistically significant increase at the mesial face (0.92 ± 1.29 mm) and a not significant increase at the distal face (0.43 ± 1.63 mm). Buccal bone wall width showed a statistically significant bone loss at the level of the implant/abutment junction (0.77 ± 0.75 mm) and at 3 mm (0.59 ± 0.76 mm) and 6 mm (0.46 ± 0.81 mm) apically to the implant/abutment junction. The height of the buccal wall showed a not statistically significant resorption (0.20 ± 0.51 mm).
CONCLUSION: Based on the preliminary results (8 months) of this case series study, it can be concluded that there was bone loss on the mesial bone crest level and on the buccal face and bone increases on the mesial and distal faces in the area where the bone meets the implant surface. Nevertheless, this is just a case series study, and long-term controlled clinical trials are essential for a definitive conclusion.
METHODS: Twelve immediate implants were inserted in the maxilla of nine consecutively treated patients. Proximal bone response was evaluated with digital periapical radiographs, and the buccal wall height and width were evaluated with computed tomography.
RESULTS: A slight decrease in the marginal bone crest (0.14 ± 0.41 mm) at the mesial face and an increase (0.07 ± 1.58 mm) at the distal face were observed. Considering the point where bone tissue meets the implant surface, there was a statistically significant increase at the mesial face (0.92 ± 1.29 mm) and a not significant increase at the distal face (0.43 ± 1.63 mm). Buccal bone wall width showed a statistically significant bone loss at the level of the implant/abutment junction (0.77 ± 0.75 mm) and at 3 mm (0.59 ± 0.76 mm) and 6 mm (0.46 ± 0.81 mm) apically to the implant/abutment junction. The height of the buccal wall showed a not statistically significant resorption (0.20 ± 0.51 mm).
CONCLUSION: Based on the preliminary results (8 months) of this case series study, it can be concluded that there was bone loss on the mesial bone crest level and on the buccal face and bone increases on the mesial and distal faces in the area where the bone meets the implant surface. Nevertheless, this is just a case series study, and long-term controlled clinical trials are essential for a definitive conclusion.