Jérôme A H Lindeboom1, Yang Tjiook, Frans H M Kroon. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.a.lindeboom@amc.uva.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical success when implants are placed in chronic periapical infected sites. STUDY DESIGN:Fifty patients (25 females, 25 males, mean age 39.7 +/- 14.5 years) were included in this prospective controlled study. After randomization, 25 Frialit-2 Synchro implants were immediately placed (IP) after extraction, and 25 Frialit-2 Synchro implants were placed after a 3-month healing period (DP). Thirty-two implants were placed in the anterior maxilla and 18 implants were placed in the premolar region. Implant survival, mean Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values, gingival aesthetics, radiographic bone loss, and microbiologic characteristics of periapical lesions were evaluated for both groups. RESULTS: Overall, 2 implants belonging to the IP group were lost, resulting in a survival rate of 92% for IP implants versus 100% for DP implants. Mean ISQ, gingival aesthetics and radiographic bone resorption, and periapical cultures were not significantly different with the IP and DP implants. CONCLUSIONS:Immediate implant placement in chronic periapical lesions may be indicated.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical success when implants are placed in chronic periapical infected sites. STUDY DESIGN: Fifty patients (25 females, 25 males, mean age 39.7 +/- 14.5 years) were included in this prospective controlled study. After randomization, 25 Frialit-2 Synchro implants were immediately placed (IP) after extraction, and 25 Frialit-2 Synchro implants were placed after a 3-month healing period (DP). Thirty-two implants were placed in the anterior maxilla and 18 implants were placed in the premolar region. Implant survival, mean Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) values, gingival aesthetics, radiographic bone loss, and microbiologic characteristics of periapical lesions were evaluated for both groups. RESULTS: Overall, 2 implants belonging to the IP group were lost, resulting in a survival rate of 92% for IP implants versus 100% for DP implants. Mean ISQ, gingival aesthetics and radiographic bone resorption, and periapical cultures were not significantly different with the IP and DP implants. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implant placement in chronic periapical lesions may be indicated.
Authors: Chintan Narad; J B Lingraj; Kamaldeep Kaur Aulakh; Karan Handa; S M Kotrashetti; P X Pinto Journal: J Oral Biol Craniofac Res Date: 2016-11-02
Authors: J Ortega-Martínez; T Pérez-Pascual; S Mareque-Bueno; F Hernández-Alfaro; E Ferrés-Padró Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2012-03-01