Feasibility of Immediate, Early and Delayed Implant Placement for Single Tooth Replacement in the Premaxilla: A Retrospective Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study of 100 Cases.

Autor: Ickroth A; Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium., Cosyn J; Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical oral implants research [Clin Oral Implants Res] 2024 Sep 24. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 24.
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14359
Abstrakt: Aim: To assess the feasibility of immediate (IIP), early (EIP) and delayed implant placement (DIP) for single tooth replacement in the premaxilla on the basis of the complete indication area of each approach in routine practice.
Materials and Methods: Data from 100 patients (59 women, 41 men, all Caucasians) aged between 19 and 81 years old (mean age 51.71) who had been consecutively treated with a single implant in the premaxilla (13-23) in one private periodontal practice were retrospectively collected. Demographic data, diagnostic information and linear measurements were extracted from patient files and CBCTs. The feasibility of IIP, EIP and DIP was assessed for all cases by both authors, based on the following criteria: availability of apical bone, position of the tooth in relation to the morphology of the alveolar process, buccal bone morphology and presence of midfacial recession. The reasons for not being able to perform an approach, and the viable alternatives for each approach were secondary outcomes. DIP was considered to have been preceded by alveolar ridge preservation (ARP).
Results: Ninety-two patients could be treated by means of IIP, EIP or DIP. In eight patients none of these approaches were possible as they required bone augmentation prior to implant placement. Fifty-two patients (95% CI: 42%-62%) could by treated with IIP, 58 (95% CI: 48%-67%) with EIP and 88 (95% CI: 80%-93%) with DIP. The feasibility proportions of IIP and EIP were significantly lower than the one of DIP (p < 0.001). All patients who could be treated with IIP could also be treated with EIP or DIP. Lack of apical bone for implant anchorage was the main reason for not being able to perform IIP and EIP. Complete loss of the buccal bone wall and the need for bone augmentation prior to implant placement were the reasons for not being able to perform DIP.
Conclusion: From the results of this retrospective CBCT analysis, DIP is nearly always possible in contrast to IIP and EIP. Therefore, and since it is much easier than IIP and EIP, inexperienced clinicians should mainly focus on ARP and DIP in clinical practice deferring IIP and EIP until more surgical skills have been acquired.
(© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: