Eli E Machtei1, Shai Frankenthal, Israel Blumenfeld, Zvi Gutmacher, Jacob Horwitz. 1. Unit of Periodontology, Department of Oral and Dental Medicine, Rambam Health Care Campus and Faculty of Medicine - Technion, Israeli Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. machtei@rambam.health.gov.il
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival of dental implants in periodontally susceptible patients using immediate loading/restoration (ILR) protocols and the factors that modulate this response. METHODS: Systemically healthy patients who were treated previously for chronic periodontitis and who required implant therapy were recruited. Following data collection, "surgical templates" and provisional fixed restorations were fabricated. Transgingival implants were inserted, and surgical measurements were performed. After abutment connection, the crown/bridge was relined and cemented. Patients were monitored for 12 months, at which time final measurements were performed. RESULTS: Twenty patients (49 implants) completed this study; five implants failed and were removed (90% survival rate). All implants were removed during the first 6 months. At 12 months, the mean implants' probing depth was 2.87 +/- 0.9 mm. The mean electronic mobility testing device value (-1.3 +/- 0.7) was slightly higher than at baseline (-3.53 +/- 10.7). Radiographic bone loss ranged between -1.24 and 2.77 mm (mean +/- SD: 0.91 +/- 0.2 mm). All of the implants (16) that were inserted in the premolar region were successful, whereas three of nine implants in the molar region and two of 24 implants in the canine/incisor region failed (P = 0.0278). Survival in the immediately loaded group (83%) was slightly lower than in the immediately restored group (96%); however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. None of the other variables (smoking, arch, stability, implant length and diameter, and bone width) affected the outcome of this procedure. CONCLUSIONS: ILR protocols are predictable alternatives in periodontally susceptible patients. Results in the molar regions suggested that careful consideration should be given to implants placed in these sites. Long-term success in these patients has not been addressed.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival of dental implants in periodontally susceptible patients using immediate loading/restoration (ILR) protocols and the factors that modulate this response. METHODS: Systemically healthy patients who were treated previously for chronic periodontitis and who required implant therapy were recruited. Following data collection, "surgical templates" and provisional fixed restorations were fabricated. Transgingival implants were inserted, and surgical measurements were performed. After abutment connection, the crown/bridge was relined and cemented. Patients were monitored for 12 months, at which time final measurements were performed. RESULTS: Twenty patients (49 implants) completed this study; five implants failed and were removed (90% survival rate). All implants were removed during the first 6 months. At 12 months, the mean implants' probing depth was 2.87 +/- 0.9 mm. The mean electronic mobility testing device value (-1.3 +/- 0.7) was slightly higher than at baseline (-3.53 +/- 10.7). Radiographic bone loss ranged between -1.24 and 2.77 mm (mean +/- SD: 0.91 +/- 0.2 mm). All of the implants (16) that were inserted in the premolar region were successful, whereas three of nine implants in the molar region and two of 24 implants in the canine/incisor region failed (P = 0.0278). Survival in the immediately loaded group (83%) was slightly lower than in the immediately restored group (96%); however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. None of the other variables (smoking, arch, stability, implant length and diameter, and bone width) affected the outcome of this procedure. CONCLUSIONS: ILR protocols are predictable alternatives in periodontally susceptible patients. Results in the molar regions suggested that careful consideration should be given to implants placed in these sites. Long-term success in these patients has not been addressed.