Background:
Recent investigations show that a treatment protocol involving tooth extraction immediately combined with implant installation can be a predictable treatment in patients with maxillary teeth extraction indication. Several studies indicate that the alveolar bone preservation and bone anatomic conditions are key factors for the soft tissue stability around implants. Bone changes like buccal resorption following tooth extraction, is likely to be a major risk for the achievement of an improved esthetic result, knowing that the midpoint of the fresh socket will resorb the double than the mesial and distal points.
Aim/Hypothesis:
To assess the influence of the socket bone walls configuration as a predictor in the immediate implant placement treatment outcomes.
Material and Methods:
Twenty-eight patients (mean age 49,58 +/- 11,09 years) with indication of maxillary tooth extraction in the region of 15 to 25 were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to a group A, where alveolar bone preservation was performed and to a group B treated with immediate single-tooth maxillary implants with a cylindrical shape (Osseospeed EV, Dentsply Implants, Molndal, Sweden), after atraumatic flapless tooth extraction. The extraction sockets of group A and the gap between the implant surface and the alveolar buccal wall in group B were filled with a deproteinized bovine bone material (Bio-Oss®, Geistlish Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland). Radiographic CBCT evaluation was performed after tooth extraction/implant placement (baseline) assessing the buccal plate thickness (BP), the buccal plate height (BH), the palatal plate height (PH), the buccal-palatal coronal distance(BPD). A new CBCT was obtained at 4 weeks (T1) and 16 weeks (T2) after tooth extraction/implant placement. Mean values of the two groups were compared using t-test and ANOVA analysis was performed to a multi-variable comparing process. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to assess the variation of the different variables according to the BP measurements. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Results:
After 16 weeks of healing a reduction of the different bone measurements was noticed in the two groups. No statistically significant differences were assessed in the BH and PH measurements between group A and B at the different time settings. No significant correlation was established between BP variation and BH/PH measurements over time. A significant correlation was set between BP and BPD at T1 and T2 in group A. In group B a significant correlation between BP and BPD was assessed at T1. Significant differences were assessed in both groups in terms of the BPD measurements from baseline to 4 weeks of healing and from baseline to 16 weeks of healing. A BPD reduction of 20,73% and 15,73% was found in group A and B, respectively, from baseline to T2. The differences in terms of BPD assessment were not significant when compared both groups.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Buccal plate thickness presents as a predictor factor in the post-extraction alveolar bone alterations. Reduced buccal alveolar walls seem to negatively influence the buccal-palatal volume in fresh extraction sites, although the chosen treatment option for its restoration. Buccal and palatal bone heights variation is not likely to be affected by the initial buccal plate anatomical conditions.
Background:
Recent investigations show that a treatment protocol involving tooth extraction immediately combined with implant installation can be a predictable treatment in patients with maxillary teeth extraction indication. Several studies indicate that the alveolar bone preservation and bone anatomic conditions are key factors for the soft tissue stability around implants. Bone changes like buccal resorption following tooth extraction, is likely to be a major risk for the achievement of an improved esthetic result, knowing that the midpoint of the fresh socket will resorb the double than the mesial and distal points.
Aim/Hypothesis:
To assess the influence of the socket bone walls configuration as a predictor in the immediate implant placement treatment outcomes.
Material and Methods:
Twenty-eight patients (mean age 49,58 +/- 11,09 years) with indication of maxillary tooth extraction in the region of 15 to 25 were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to a group A, where alveolar bone preservation was performed and to a group B treated with immediate single-tooth maxillary implants with a cylindrical shape (Osseospeed EV, Dentsply Implants, Molndal, Sweden), after atraumatic flapless tooth extraction. The extraction sockets of group A and the gap between the implant surface and the alveolar buccal wall in group B were filled with a deproteinized bovine bone material (Bio-Oss®, Geistlish Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland). Radiographic CBCT evaluation was performed after tooth extraction/implant placement (baseline) assessing the buccal plate thickness (BP), the buccal plate height (BH), the palatal plate height (PH), the buccal-palatal coronal distance(BPD). A new CBCT was obtained at 4 weeks (T1) and 16 weeks (T2) after tooth extraction/implant placement. Mean values of the two groups were compared using t-test and ANOVA analysis was performed to a multi-variable comparing process. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to assess the variation of the different variables according to the BP measurements. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Results:
After 16 weeks of healing a reduction of the different bone measurements was noticed in the two groups. No statistically significant differences were assessed in the BH and PH measurements between group A and B at the different time settings. No significant correlation was established between BP variation and BH/PH measurements over time. A significant correlation was set between BP and BPD at T1 and T2 in group A. In group B a significant correlation between BP and BPD was assessed at T1. Significant differences were assessed in both groups in terms of the BPD measurements from baseline to 4 weeks of healing and from baseline to 16 weeks of healing. A BPD reduction of 20,73% and 15,73% was found in group A and B, respectively, from baseline to T2. The differences in terms of BPD assessment were not significant when compared both groups.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Buccal plate thickness presents as a predictor factor in the post-extraction alveolar bone alterations. Reduced buccal alveolar walls seem to negatively influence the buccal-palatal volume in fresh extraction sites, although the chosen treatment option for its restoration. Buccal and palatal bone heights variation is not likely to be affected by the initial buccal plate anatomical conditions.
Background:
Recent investigations show that a treatment protocol involving tooth extraction immediately combined with implant installation can be a predictable treatment in patients with maxillary teeth extraction indication. Several studies indicate that the alveolar bone preservation and bone anatomic conditions are key factors for the soft tissue stability around implants. Bone changes like buccal resorption following tooth extraction, is likely to be a major risk for the achievement of an improved esthetic result, knowing that the midpoint of the fresh socket will resorb the double than the mesial and distal points.
Aim/Hypothesis:
To assess the influence of the socket bone walls configuration as a predictor in the immediate implant placement treatment outcomes.
Material and Methods:
Twenty-eight patients (mean age 49,58 +/- 11,09 years) with indication of maxillary tooth extraction in the region of 15 to 25 were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to a group A, where alveolar bone preservation was performed and to a group B treated with immediate single-tooth maxillary implants with a cylindrical shape (Osseospeed EV, Dentsply Implants, Molndal, Sweden), after atraumatic flapless tooth extraction. The extraction sockets of group A and the gap between the implant surface and the alveolar buccal wall in group B were filled with a deproteinized bovine bone material (Bio-Oss®, Geistlish Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland). Radiographic CBCT evaluation was performed after tooth extraction/implant placement (baseline) assessing the buccal plate thickness (BP), the buccal plate height (BH), the palatal plate height (PH), the buccal-palatal coronal distance(BPD). A new CBCT was obtained at 4 weeks (T1) and 16 weeks (T2) after tooth extraction/implant placement. Mean values of the two groups were compared using t-test and ANOVA analysis was performed to a multi-variable comparing process. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to assess the variation of the different variables according to the BP measurements. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Results:
After 16 weeks of healing a reduction of the different bone measurements was noticed in the two groups. No statistically significant differences were assessed in the BH and PH measurements between group A and B at the different time settings. No significant correlation was established between BP variation and BH/PH measurements over time. A significant correlation was set between BP and BPD at T1 and T2 in group A. In group B a significant correlation between BP and BPD was assessed at T1. Significant differences were assessed in both groups in terms of the BPD measurements from baseline to 4 weeks of healing and from baseline to 16 weeks of healing. A BPD reduction of 20,73% and 15,73% was found in group A and B, respectively, from baseline to T2. The differences in terms of BPD assessment were not significant when compared both groups.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Buccal plate thickness presents as a predictor factor in the post-extraction alveolar bone alterations. Reduced buccal alveolar walls seem to negatively influence the buccal-palatal volume in fresh extraction sites, although the chosen treatment option for its restoration. Buccal and palatal bone heights variation is not likely to be affected by the initial buccal plate anatomical conditions.
Background:
Recent investigations show that a treatment protocol involving tooth extraction immediately combined with implant installation can be a predictable treatment in patients with maxillary teeth extraction indication. Several studies indicate that the alveolar bone preservation and bone anatomic conditions are key factors for the soft tissue stability around implants. Bone changes like buccal resorption following tooth extraction, is likely to be a major risk for the achievement of an improved esthetic result, knowing that the midpoint of the fresh socket will resorb the double than the mesial and distal points.
Aim/Hypothesis:
To assess the influence of the socket bone walls configuration as a predictor in the immediate implant placement treatment outcomes.
Material and Methods:
Twenty-eight patients (mean age 49,58 +/- 11,09 years) with indication of maxillary tooth extraction in the region of 15 to 25 were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to a group A, where alveolar bone preservation was performed and to a group B treated with immediate single-tooth maxillary implants with a cylindrical shape (Osseospeed EV, Dentsply Implants, Molndal, Sweden), after atraumatic flapless tooth extraction. The extraction sockets of group A and the gap between the implant surface and the alveolar buccal wall in group B were filled with a deproteinized bovine bone material (Bio-Oss®, Geistlish Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland). Radiographic CBCT evaluation was performed after tooth extraction/implant placement (baseline) assessing the buccal plate thickness (BP), the buccal plate height (BH), the palatal plate height (PH), the buccal-palatal coronal distance(BPD). A new CBCT was obtained at 4 weeks (T1) and 16 weeks (T2) after tooth extraction/implant placement. Mean values of the two groups were compared using t-test and ANOVA analysis was performed to a multi-variable comparing process. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to assess the variation of the different variables according to the BP measurements. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Results:
After 16 weeks of healing a reduction of the different bone measurements was noticed in the two groups. No statistically significant differences were assessed in the BH and PH measurements between group A and B at the different time settings. No significant correlation was established between BP variation and BH/PH measurements over time. A significant correlation was set between BP and BPD at T1 and T2 in group A. In group B a significant correlation between BP and BPD was assessed at T1. Significant differences were assessed in both groups in terms of the BPD measurements from baseline to 4 weeks of healing and from baseline to 16 weeks of healing. A BPD reduction of 20,73% and 15,73% was found in group A and B, respectively, from baseline to T2. The differences in terms of BPD assessment were not significant when compared both groups.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Buccal plate thickness presents as a predictor factor in the post-extraction alveolar bone alterations. Reduced buccal alveolar walls seem to negatively influence the buccal-palatal volume in fresh extraction sites, although the chosen treatment option for its restoration. Buccal and palatal bone heights variation is not likely to be affected by the initial buccal plate anatomical conditions.