Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 6 21. Nov. 2017
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31 (2016), No. 4 (22.07.2016)
Page 849-854, doi:10.11607/jomi.4437, PubMed:27447152
Regenerative Needs Following Alveolar Ridge Preservation Procedures in Compromised and Noncompromised Extraction Sockets: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study
Koutouzis, Theofilos / Lipton, David
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the necessity for additional regenerative procedures following healing of compromised and noncompromised extraction sockets with alveolar ridge preservation procedures through the use of virtual implant imaging software.
Materials and Methods: The cohort was comprised of 87 consecutive patients subjected to a single maxillary tooth extraction with an alveolar ridge preservation procedure for subsequent implant placement. Patients were divided into two main groups based on the integrity of the buccal bone plate following teeth extraction. Patients in the compromised socket (CS) group (n = 52) had partial or complete buccal bone plate loss, and patients in the noncompromised socket (NCS) group (n = 35) exhibited no bone loss of their socket walls following tooth extraction. Following 4 to 6 months of healing, all patients had a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) study. Root-formed implants were placed virtually in an ideal prosthetic position. The number of implants per group and location (anterior, premolar, molar) exhibiting exposed buccal implant surface was calculated.
Results: In the CS group, 5 out of 19 anterior implants (26.3%), 4 out of 14 premolar implants (28.5%), and 7 out of 19 molar implants (36.8%) had exposed buccal surfaces. In the NCS group, 4 out of 9 anterior implants (44.4%), 2 out of 9 premolar implants (22.2%), and 4 out of 17 molar implants (23.5%) had exposed buccal surfaces. There were no statistically significant differences for intragroup and intergroup comparisons (χ2 test, P > .05).
Conclusion: This study failed to find statistically significant differences in the frequency of implants with exposed buccal surfaces placed virtually, following treatment of compromised and noncompromised sockets. A high proportion (22% to 44%) of sites had implants that potentially needed additional regenerative procedures.
Keywords: bone regeneration, bone resorption, cone beam computed tomography, cone beam virtual implant placement, dental implants, tooth extraction