PURPOSE: The aim of this case series was to evaluate success and peri-implant bone response around Morse taper immediate implants with an immediate provisionalization. METHODS: Twelve immediate implants were inserted in the maxilla of nine consecutively treated patients. Proximal bone response was evaluated with digital periapical radiographs, and the buccal wall height and width were evaluated with computed tomography. RESULTS: A slight decrease in the marginal bone crest (0.14 ± 0.41 mm) at the mesial face and an increase (0.07 ± 1.58 mm) at the distal face were observed. Considering the point where bone tissue meets the implant surface, there was a statistically significant increase at the mesial face (0.92 ± 1.29 mm) and a not significant increase at the distal face (0.43 ± 1.63 mm). Buccal bone wall width showed a statistically significant bone loss at the level of the implant/abutment junction (0.77 ± 0.75 mm) and at 3 mm (0.59 ± 0.76 mm) and 6 mm (0.46 ± 0.81 mm) apically to the implant/abutment junction. The height of the buccal wall showed a not statistically significant resorption (0.20 ± 0.51 mm). CONCLUSION: Based on the preliminary results (8 months) of this case series study, it can be concluded that there was bone loss on the mesial bone crest level and on the buccal face and bone increases on the mesial and distal faces in the area where the bone meets the implant surface. Nevertheless, this is just a case series study, and long-term controlled clinical trials are essential for a definitive conclusion.
PURPOSE: The aim of this case series was to evaluate success and peri-implant bone response around Morse taper immediate implants with an immediate provisionalization. METHODS: Twelve immediate implants were inserted in the maxilla of nine consecutively treated patients. Proximal bone response was evaluated with digital periapical radiographs, and the buccal wall height and width were evaluated with computed tomography. RESULTS: A slight decrease in the marginal bone crest (0.14 ± 0.41 mm) at the mesial face and an increase (0.07 ± 1.58 mm) at the distal face were observed. Considering the point where bone tissue meets the implant surface, there was a statistically significant increase at the mesial face (0.92 ± 1.29 mm) and a not significant increase at the distal face (0.43 ± 1.63 mm). Buccal bone wall width showed a statistically significant bone loss at the level of the implant/abutment junction (0.77 ± 0.75 mm) and at 3 mm (0.59 ± 0.76 mm) and 6 mm (0.46 ± 0.81 mm) apically to the implant/abutment junction. The height of the buccal wall showed a not statistically significant resorption (0.20 ± 0.51 mm). CONCLUSION: Based on the preliminary results (8 months) of this case series study, it can be concluded that there was bone loss on the mesial bone crest level and on the buccal face and bone increases on the mesial and distal faces in the area where the bone meets the implant surface. Nevertheless, this is just a case series study, and long-term controlled clinical trials are essential for a definitive conclusion.
Authors: D Buser; V Chappuis; U Kuchler; M M Bornstein; J G Wittneben; R Buser; Y Cavusoglu; U C Belser Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Roberto Crespi; Paolo Capparé; Enrico Gherlone; George E Romanos Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Michael S Block; Donald E Mercante; Denise Lirette; Waheed Mohamed; Mark Ryser; Paulino Castellon Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Daniel Buser; Sandro Halbritter; Chris Hart; Michael M Bornstein; Linda Grütter; Vivianne Chappuis; Urs C Belser Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 6.993