PURPOSE: The immediate placement of single postextractive implants is increasing in the everyday clinical practice. Due to insufficient bone tissue volume, proper primary stability, essential for subsequent osseointegration, is sometimes not reached. The aim of this work was to compare two different approaches: implant bed preparation before and after root extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty-two patients of both sexes were selected who needed an implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of the fractured first mandibular molar or presented an untreatable endodontic pathology. The sites were randomly assigned to the test group (treated with implant bed preparation before molar extractions) or control group (treated with implant bed preparation after molar extractions) by a computer-generated table. All implants were placed by the same operator, who was experienced in both traditional and ultrasonic techniques. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) and the position of the implant were evaluated. Statistical analysis was carried out. RESULTS: In the control group, three implants were placed in the central portion of the bone septum, while eight implants were placed with a tilted axis in relation to the septum; in the test group, all implants were placed in ideal positions within the root extraction sockets. The different position of the implants between the two procedures was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This work presented an innovative approach for implant placement at the time of mandibular molar extraction. Preparing the implant bed with an ultrasonic device before root extraction is a simple technique and also allows greater stability to be reached in a selective case.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The immediate placement of single postextractive implants is increasing in the everyday clinical practice. Due to insufficient bone tissue volume, proper primary stability, essential for subsequent osseointegration, is sometimes not reached. The aim of this work was to compare two different approaches: implant bed preparation before and after root extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients of both sexes were selected who needed an implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of the fractured first mandibular molar or presented an untreatable endodontic pathology. The sites were randomly assigned to the test group (treated with implant bed preparation before molar extractions) or control group (treated with implant bed preparation after molar extractions) by a computer-generated table. All implants were placed by the same operator, who was experienced in both traditional and ultrasonic techniques. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) and the position of the implant were evaluated. Statistical analysis was carried out. RESULTS: In the control group, three implants were placed in the central portion of the bone septum, while eight implants were placed with a tilted axis in relation to the septum; in the test group, all implants were placed in ideal positions within the root extraction sockets. The different position of the implants between the two procedures was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This work presented an innovative approach for implant placement at the time of mandibular molar extraction. Preparing the implant bed with an ultrasonic device before root extraction is a simple technique and also allows greater stability to be reached in a selective case.