PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of dental implants placed immediately into extraction sites in the presence of chronic periapical pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of 655 patients who had implants immediately placed into fresh extraction sites were reviewed for the presence or absence of periapical radiolucencies. A total of 922 implants were included. Of the 922 implants, 285 were immediately placed into sockets that had chronic periapical infections. The remaining 637 implants, without signs of periapical pathology, were used as the control group. Success of the implants was defined as successful osseointegration, successful restoration, and absence of evidence of bone loss or peri-implantitis. Other variables such as age, gender, smoking, diabetes, bisphosphonate use, lucencies of adjacent teeth, and implant stability at the time of placement were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 922 implants, 285 were placed into sockets with periapical radiolucencies. The success rate of implants placed in the study group was 97.5%, whereas the success rate of the control group was 98.7%. The difference was not found to be statistically significant. The mean follow-up was 19.75 months, with a maximum of 93 months and a minimum of 3 months. A statistically higher failure rate was found for implants placed adjacent to retained teeth with periapical pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The placement of implants in sockets affected by chronic periapical pathology can be considered a safe and viable treatment option. There is a risk of implant failure when placing implants adjacent to teeth with periapical radiolucencies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of dental implants placed immediately into extraction sites in the presence of chronic periapical pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of 655 patients who had implants immediately placed into fresh extraction sites were reviewed for the presence or absence of periapical radiolucencies. A total of 922 implants were included. Of the 922 implants, 285 were immediately placed into sockets that had chronic periapical infections. The remaining 637 implants, without signs of periapical pathology, were used as the control group. Success of the implants was defined as successful osseointegration, successful restoration, and absence of evidence of bone loss or peri-implantitis. Other variables such as age, gender, smoking, diabetes, bisphosphonate use, lucencies of adjacent teeth, and implant stability at the time of placement were also evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 922 implants, 285 were placed into sockets with periapical radiolucencies. The success rate of implants placed in the study group was 97.5%, whereas the success rate of the control group was 98.7%. The difference was not found to be statistically significant. The mean follow-up was 19.75 months, with a maximum of 93 months and a minimum of 3 months. A statistically higher failure rate was found for implants placed adjacent to retained teeth with periapical pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The placement of implants in sockets affected by chronic periapical pathology can be considered a safe and viable treatment option. There is a risk of implant failure when placing implants adjacent to teeth with periapical radiolucencies.