M. Di Girolamo, C. Arullani, R. Calcaterra, J. Manzi, C. Arcuri, L. Baggi
{"title":"Preservation of extraction socket in immediate implant placement: a clinical study.","authors":"M. Di Girolamo, C. Arullani, R. Calcaterra, J. Manzi, C. Arcuri, L. Baggi","doi":"10.11138/orl/2016.9.4.222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIM\nThe objective of this study was to compare different approaches temporary restoration in an immediate implant placement. To determine the respective influence of each parameter, two treatment groups were formed; a strict and standardized study protocol was applied to minimize the influence of bias and confounding factors. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) - the esthetic out-come of soft tissue appearance was evaluated.\n\n\nMATERIAL AND METHODS\nSixteen patients with a single failing tooth in the maxilla and a natural contralateral site were randomly distributed into two groups. Treatment variations affected the provisional restorative in detail, group 1 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration with the simulation of the first three mm of the root and the seal of the socket, group 2 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration without the seal of the socket. All patients received the final prosthetic restoration 10-12 weeks after implant placement. Standardized photographs were taken eight months after tooth extraction. Five competent observers analyzed the esthetic outcome according to the PES.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe overall scores of the four treatment groups revealed PES values of 8.47 (SD 2.08, group 1), 6.62 (SD 3.24, group 2). The differences between groups 1 and 2 and were statistically significant (P=0.015 and P=0.047). The single parameter analysis displayed a certain range of fluctuation and heterogeneity.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nImmediate implant placement and restoration appear to be a suitable alternative to early implant placement if an experienced surgeon is entrusted with the implantation procedure.","PeriodicalId":38303,"journal":{"name":"ORAL and Implantology","volume":"9 4 1","pages":"222-232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ORAL and Implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11138/orl/2016.9.4.222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
AIM
The objective of this study was to compare different approaches temporary restoration in an immediate implant placement. To determine the respective influence of each parameter, two treatment groups were formed; a strict and standardized study protocol was applied to minimize the influence of bias and confounding factors. The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) - the esthetic out-come of soft tissue appearance was evaluated.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Sixteen patients with a single failing tooth in the maxilla and a natural contralateral site were randomly distributed into two groups. Treatment variations affected the provisional restorative in detail, group 1 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration with the simulation of the first three mm of the root and the seal of the socket, group 2 with immediate implant placement and immediate temporary restoration without the seal of the socket. All patients received the final prosthetic restoration 10-12 weeks after implant placement. Standardized photographs were taken eight months after tooth extraction. Five competent observers analyzed the esthetic outcome according to the PES.
RESULTS
The overall scores of the four treatment groups revealed PES values of 8.47 (SD 2.08, group 1), 6.62 (SD 3.24, group 2). The differences between groups 1 and 2 and were statistically significant (P=0.015 and P=0.047). The single parameter analysis displayed a certain range of fluctuation and heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
Immediate implant placement and restoration appear to be a suitable alternative to early implant placement if an experienced surgeon is entrusted with the implantation procedure.