Crestal Bone Changes After Immediate Placement in Molar Extraction Sites with 8-9mm Diameter Osseointegrated Implants: 3 year follow-up
Eshaghzadeh, E,; Tetradis, S; Aghaloo, T; Moy, P; Pi-Anfruns, J
After a dental extraction, the alveolar socket undergoes a healing process that translates into vertical and horizontal bone loss. To minimize the remodeling process and prepare the site for future dental implants, socket grafting has been recommended. However, grafting procedures are costly, extend the treatment time and have associated risks. In order to reduce time and costs, extraction and immediate implant placement has been recommended. Furthermore, wide implants minimized discrepancy between the socket shape and the implant and may not require grafting at the time of placement. Short-term studies of 8-9mm diameter implants have demonstrated a survival rate of 95.7% and stable bone conditions, irrespective of loading or surgical protocol.
The aim of this prospective clinical study is to evaluate the success of immediate molar replacement with 8-9mm diameter dental implants.
This study was approved by UCLA’s Institutional Review Board (IRB #11-002634 and 12-000121).
Patients who needed the extraction of the 1st or 2nd molars received an 8 or 9mm diameter implant at the time of extraction (Max® implant, Keystone Dental Inc., Burlington, MA.). All implants were placed as a one-stage protocol and allowed to heal for 2 months. All implants were restored as single units with a screw-retained PFM crown. At the time of crown delivery, a jig was fabricated in order to obtain standardized periapical x-rays, utilizing the parallel-cone technique, in subsequent follow-ups after delivery of the final restoration. Crestal bone height was measured utilizing digital software, and the changes in crestal bone height between follow-ups were analyzed. All crowns were screw-retained PFM crowns.
Within the limitations of this study, 8-9mm diameter implants placed immediately after extraction have shown to be an alternative solution to avoid grafting procedures and reduce treatment time and costs in the posterior area.
1. HammerleCH, Araujo MG, Simion M. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 5:80-82.
2. StrubJR, Jurdzik BA, Tuna T. Prognosis of immediately loaded implants and their restorations: a systematic literature review. J Oral Rehabil 2012;39:704-717.
6. RenouardF, Nisand D. Impact of implantlength and diameteronsurvivalrates. Clin Oral Implants Res. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2006 Oct;17 Suppl 2(S2):35–51.