We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 3     15. May 2008
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 3  (15.05.2008)

Page 531-538, PubMed:18700379

Radiographic Changes Around Immediately Restored Dental Implants in Periodontally Susceptible Patients: 1-year Results
Horwitz, Jacob / Zuabi, Otman / Machtei, Eli
Purpose: There is little information available about radiographic bone changes around immediately restored implants in periodontally compromised patients. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of immediate restoration on radiographic bone changes and to compare radiographic changes between arches and between healed and extraction sites in periodontally susceptible patients.
Materials and Methods: Patients received periodontal treatment. "All in one" implant surgery was then performed: Hopeless teeth were extracted, debridement around remaining adjacent teeth was performed, implants were inserted guided by a surgical stent, and a prefabricated screwed provisional restoration was immediately delivered on selected implants. Periapical radiographs using a parallelism appliance were taken at implant surgery and 6 and 12 months postsurgery. The distance between the alveolar crest and the implant shoulder was measured at the mesial and distal aspect of each implant. Bone changes were compared between immediately restored, submerged, and nonrestored implants; between arches; and between healed and extraction sites.
Results: Nineteen patients received 74 implants. Twelve implants in 4 patients failed within the first 6 months. Mean bone changes (± SE) between baseline and 12 months ranged between -1.19 ± 0.19 mm and -1.88 ± 0.3 mm. No difference was found between restored versus nonrestored sites or between maxillary and mandibular sites. Bone loss was slightly higher in healed sites.
Conclusions: First-year bone changes around immediately restored dental implants in periodontally susceptible patients were slightly higher than most reports in the literature. This indicates a potential influence of periodontal disease on the success rate of dental implants.

Keywords: bone loss, dental implants, immediate loading, periodontal disease