OBJECTIVES: the aim of the present study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of immediately placed implants in sockets with or without periapical pathology 3 years after implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: twenty-nine patients with immediate implant placement were clinically and radiologically followed 3 years after implant placement (test group: 16 patients without periapical pathology, control group: 13 patients with periapical pathologies). Clinical (full-mouth bleeding score, full-mouth plaque score, clinical attachment level measurements and width of keratinized mucosa buccaly of the implant) and radiological parameters (vertical distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone-to-implant contact [IS-BIC]) were assessed. Both 95% confidence intervals, as well as results of statistical tests (one-sample, two-sample and paired t-test) were provided. RESULTS: the implant survival rate was 100% for all 29 implants after 3 years. The clinical and radiological parameters showed no statistically significant difference between the test and the control group at 3 years (two-sample t-test). The IS-BIC was between 1.54 ± 0.88 mm (mesial, test) and 1.69 ± 0.92 mm (distal, test). Between the 1- and 3-year visit the IS-BIC increased in both groups significantly on one side of the implant: 0.30 ± 0.37 mm (mesial, test) and 0.33 ± 0.43 mm (distal, control) (one-sample t-test). None of the 13 examined radiographs of implants immediately placed in sockets with periapical pathologies revealed retrograde peri-implantitis after 3 years. CONCLUSION: it is concluded within the limitations of this study, that after careful debridement of the extraction socket, immediate placement of implants into sites with periapical pathologies can be a successful treatment modality for at least 3 years with no disadvantages in clinical and radiological parameters to immediately placed implants into healthy sockets.
OBJECTIVES: the aim of the present study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcome of immediately placed implants in sockets with or without periapical pathology 3 years after implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: twenty-nine patients with immediate implant placement were clinically and radiologically followed 3 years after implant placement (test group: 16 patients without periapical pathology, control group: 13 patients with periapical pathologies). Clinical (full-mouth bleeding score, full-mouth plaque score, clinical attachment level measurements and width of keratinized mucosa buccaly of the implant) and radiological parameters (vertical distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone-to-implant contact [IS-BIC]) were assessed. Both 95% confidence intervals, as well as results of statistical tests (one-sample, two-sample and paired t-test) were provided. RESULTS: the implant survival rate was 100% for all 29 implants after 3 years. The clinical and radiological parameters showed no statistically significant difference between the test and the control group at 3 years (two-sample t-test). The IS-BIC was between 1.54 ± 0.88 mm (mesial, test) and 1.69 ± 0.92 mm (distal, test). Between the 1- and 3-year visit the IS-BIC increased in both groups significantly on one side of the implant: 0.30 ± 0.37 mm (mesial, test) and 0.33 ± 0.43 mm (distal, control) (one-sample t-test). None of the 13 examined radiographs of implants immediately placed in sockets with periapical pathologies revealed retrograde peri-implantitis after 3 years. CONCLUSION: it is concluded within the limitations of this study, that after careful debridement of the extraction socket, immediate placement of implants into sites with periapical pathologies can be a successful treatment modality for at least 3 years with no disadvantages in clinical and radiological parameters to immediately placed implants into healthy sockets.