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
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27 (2012), No. 2     15. Mar. 2012
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 27 (2012), No. 2  (15.03.2012)

Page 411-420, PubMed:22442782


Implant Site Development by Orthodontic Forced Extraction: A Preliminary Study
Amato, Francesco / Mirabella, A. Davide / Macca, Ugo / Tarnow, Dennis P.
Purpose: To evaluate the soft and hard tissue response to orthodontic implant site development (OISD) (ie, forced extraction), to measure the amount of tissue that was regenerated and its relationship to the amount of orthodontic vertical tooth movement, to evaluate the tissue response in teeth with different degrees of periodontal attachment loss, to understand the limits of OISD, and to evaluate the implant survival rate.
Materials and Methods: A total of 32 hopeless teeth were treated with OISD, and 27 implants were placed in 13 patients consecutively. The level of periodontal attachment on the teeth to be extracted, amount of augmented alveolar bone, changes in soft tissue volume, and the rate of orthodontic tooth movement were recorded.
Results: Mean values after OISD were as follows: orthodontic extrusive movement, 6.2 ± 1.4 mm; bone augmentation, 4 ± 1.4 mm; coronal movement of the gingival margin, 3.9 ± 1.5 mm; coronal movement of the mucogingival junction, 2.1 ± 1.3 mm; keratinized gingival augmentation, 1.8 ± 1.1 mm; gingival thickness (buccolingual dimension) augmentation, 0.7 ± 0.4 mm; recession, 1.8 ± 1.2 mm; bone augmentation/orthodontic movement ratio (efficacy), 68.9% ± 17.3%; gingival augmentation/orthodontic movement ratio (efficacy), 65.2% ± 19.9%; and pocket depth reduction, 1.8 ± 0.9 mm. The implant survival rate was 96.3%.
Conclusions: OISD was a viable treatment for these hopeless teeth to regenerate hard and soft tissues. Its efficacy was about 70% for bone regeneration and 60% for gingival augmentation. The residual attachment level on the tooth was not a limitation. OISD might be a valuable treatment option to regenerate tissues for implant site development in patients in need of conventional orthodontic therapy.

Keywords: bone augmentation, forced eruption, gingiva augmentation, implant site development, orthodontic forced extrusion, orthodontic implant site development