-
All Events
IAO-EAO-SIdP joint meeting 2024EAO-DGI joint meeting 202329th Annual Scientific CongressEAO Digital Days 2021EAO Digital Days 202028th Annual Scientific Congress27th Annual Scientific Congress26th Annual Scientific Congress25th Annual Scientific Congress24th Annual Scientific Congress23rd Annual Scientific Congress -
All Content TypesAbstractArticle ReviewePosterLearning moduleLearning QuizMatching SlidePDF DocumentWebcast
-
Sort ByRelevance
Background:
İmmediate implant placement has gained popularity because it can reduce treatment time, number of surgeries and post-extraction bone loss. Following tooth extraction, there are a series of biological processes that take place: bone resorption both vertically as well as horizontally, with a change in the height and thickness of the alveolar bone. Due to all of these factors, the technique for placement of implants immediately and early immediately after extraction was proposed as a way of maintaining the osseous substrate of the surgical area. Immediate implant placement refers to the placement of an implant into a tooth socket concurrently with the extraction; early immediate implant placement refers to the placement of an implant after substantial gingival healing, but before any clinically significant bone fill occurs within the socket.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rates and was to compare bone healing and crestal bone changes following implants with immediate and early immediate placement.
Material and Methods:
Twenty(10 female/10 male) patient were included in this prospective study. 20 immediate (type I) implants were placed in 10 patients (test group) and 20 conventional implants were placed in 10 patients (control group). All implants 12 months follow-up. Additional surgery requirement, complications, advantages and disadvantages of immediate and conventional implant placement were compared.
Results:
The survival rates of immediate and early immediate implants were founded respectively 96 %, and 97%. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for implant losses, complications, and mean marginal bone level changes. The reduction over time was statistically significant in both groups (P < 0.4). For both groups, a higher degree of bone healing was achieved in the extraction sockets.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Similar survival rates were observed for immediate and early immediate placement.
Background:
İmmediate implant placement has gained popularity because it can reduce treatment time, number of surgeries and post-extraction bone loss. Following tooth extraction, there are a series of biological processes that take place: bone resorption both vertically as well as horizontally, with a change in the height and thickness of the alveolar bone. Due to all of these factors, the technique for placement of implants immediately and early immediately after extraction was proposed as a way of maintaining the osseous substrate of the surgical area. Immediate implant placement refers to the placement of an implant into a tooth socket concurrently with the extraction; early immediate implant placement refers to the placement of an implant after substantial gingival healing, but before any clinically significant bone fill occurs within the socket.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rates and was to compare bone healing and crestal bone changes following implants with immediate and early immediate placement.
Material and Methods:
Twenty(10 female/10 male) patient were included in this prospective study. 20 immediate (type I) implants were placed in 10 patients (test group) and 20 conventional implants were placed in 10 patients (control group). All implants 12 months follow-up. Additional surgery requirement, complications, advantages and disadvantages of immediate and conventional implant placement were compared.
Results:
The survival rates of immediate and early immediate implants were founded respectively 96 %, and 97%. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for implant losses, complications, and mean marginal bone level changes. The reduction over time was statistically significant in both groups (P < 0.4). For both groups, a higher degree of bone healing was achieved in the extraction sockets.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Similar survival rates were observed for immediate and early immediate placement.
Background:
İmmediate implant placement has gained popularity because it can reduce treatment time, number of surgeries and post-extraction bone loss. Following tooth extraction, there are a series of biological processes that take place: bone resorption both vertically as well as horizontally, with a change in the height and thickness of the alveolar bone. Due to all of these factors, the technique for placement of implants immediately and early immediately after extraction was proposed as a way of maintaining the osseous substrate of the surgical area. Immediate implant placement refers to the placement of an implant into a tooth socket concurrently with the extraction; early immediate implant placement refers to the placement of an implant after substantial gingival healing, but before any clinically significant bone fill occurs within the socket.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rates and was to compare bone healing and crestal bone changes following implants with immediate and early immediate placement.
Material and Methods:
Twenty(10 female/10 male) patient were included in this prospective study. 20 immediate (type I) implants were placed in 10 patients (test group) and 20 conventional implants were placed in 10 patients (control group). All implants 12 months follow-up. Additional surgery requirement, complications, advantages and disadvantages of immediate and conventional implant placement were compared.
Results:
The survival rates of immediate and early immediate implants were founded respectively 96 %, and 97%. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for implant losses, complications, and mean marginal bone level changes. The reduction over time was statistically significant in both groups (P < 0.4). For both groups, a higher degree of bone healing was achieved in the extraction sockets.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Similar survival rates were observed for immediate and early immediate placement.
Background:
İmmediate implant placement has gained popularity because it can reduce treatment time, number of surgeries and post-extraction bone loss. Following tooth extraction, there are a series of biological processes that take place: bone resorption both vertically as well as horizontally, with a change in the height and thickness of the alveolar bone. Due to all of these factors, the technique for placement of implants immediately and early immediately after extraction was proposed as a way of maintaining the osseous substrate of the surgical area. Immediate implant placement refers to the placement of an implant into a tooth socket concurrently with the extraction; early immediate implant placement refers to the placement of an implant after substantial gingival healing, but before any clinically significant bone fill occurs within the socket.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rates and was to compare bone healing and crestal bone changes following implants with immediate and early immediate placement.
Material and Methods:
Twenty(10 female/10 male) patient were included in this prospective study. 20 immediate (type I) implants were placed in 10 patients (test group) and 20 conventional implants were placed in 10 patients (control group). All implants 12 months follow-up. Additional surgery requirement, complications, advantages and disadvantages of immediate and conventional implant placement were compared.
Results:
The survival rates of immediate and early immediate implants were founded respectively 96 %, and 97%. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for implant losses, complications, and mean marginal bone level changes. The reduction over time was statistically significant in both groups (P < 0.4). For both groups, a higher degree of bone healing was achieved in the extraction sockets.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Similar survival rates were observed for immediate and early immediate placement.