Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt, Phone: +20 1032135667, e-mail:
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt, Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7897-5535.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2024 Apr 1;25(4):303-312. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3674.
To assess the implant stability and amount of marginal bone loss in immediate implant placement (IIP) in mandibular molars by using pre-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation vs conventional post-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation.
This randomized clinical trial was conducted on fourteen patients who had an immediate dental implant at the mandibular molar area by two different techniques. All patients were divided randomly into two equal groups: Group I (control) was treated with conventional post-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation, and group II (test) was treated by pre-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. All patients were followed up clinically at immediate post-surgery (T0), 7 days (T1), 3 weeks (T2), 90 days (T3), and 3 months after loading (T6) for healing and to evaluate the marginal bone loss radiographically at T0, T3 and T6. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed using the SPSS version (SPSS, IBM Inc., Chicago, IL), and ≤ 0.05 was considered an indicator of statistical significance.
A total of 7 female and 7 male patients with a mean age of 32.07 ± 5.87 years. Radiographically, there is no significant statistical difference in comparing between two groups for the marginal bone loss. However, there was a highly significant statistical difference ( < 0.001) in each group between different interval periods (T0, T3, T6) with mean start 5.27 ± 0.53, and 5.19 ± 0.72 at (T0) reaching 7.60 ± 0.89 and 7.09 ± 0.96 at (T3) and slightly decrease of 7.52 ± 0.79 and 7.02 ± 0.79 in (T6) with radiographic evaluation, and it represented clinically in each group with mean 3.57 ± 0.313 and 4.0 ± 0.58 at (T0) increase to 6.55 ± 0.395 and 6.52 ± 0.45 at (T6) for both group respectively. There is no statistically significant difference in soft tissue healing with an average mean of 4.57 ± 0.24 and 3.57 ± 0.509 ( = 0.001) when comparing between both groups respectively.
Both techniques seem useful for dental implant placement in badly decayed mandibular molars. However, pre-extracted interradicular implant bed preparation for IIP might offer advantages in terms of primary implant stability and bone preservation. However, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Both techniques are alternative methods for the treatment of badly decayed mandibular molars by immediate dental implant except for minor complications that do not interfere with dental implant placement. How to cite this article: Alzaibak LMA, Abdel-Monem TM, Elgohary NM, . Immediate Implant Placement with Different Interradicular Osteotomies in the Mandible: A Randomized Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(4):303-312.
通过使用拔牙前的根间种植床预备与传统拔牙后的根间种植床预备来评估下颌磨牙中即刻种植（IIP）的种植体稳定性和边缘骨丧失量。
这项随机临床试验在 14 名患者中进行，他们在下颌磨牙区域通过两种不同的技术进行了即刻牙种植。所有患者随机均分为两组：组 I（对照组）采用传统拔牙后的根间种植床预备，组 II（试验组）采用拔牙前的根间种植床预备。所有手术均由同一位外科医生进行。所有患者均在即刻手术后（T0）、7 天（T1）、3 周（T2）、90 天（T3）和加载后 3 个月（T6）进行临床随访，以评估愈合情况，并在 T0、T3 和 T6 进行放射学评估以测量边缘骨丧失量。使用 SPSS 版本（SPSS，IBM Inc.，芝加哥，IL）进行描述性和双变量统计分析， ≤ 0.05 被认为是统计学意义的指标。
共有 7 名女性和 7 名男性患者，平均年龄为 32.07 ± 5.87 岁。放射学上，两组之间的边缘骨丧失量无显著统计学差异。然而，在每组内不同时间间隔（T0、T3、T6）之间存在高度显著的统计学差异（<0.001），起始平均值为 5.27 ± 0.53 和 5.19 ± 0.72（T0），达到 7.60 ± 0.89 和 7.09 ± 0.96（T3），并在（T6）略有下降，平均值为 7.52 ± 0.79 和 7.02 ± 0.79，放射学评估显示临床情况，每组平均值分别为 3.57 ± 0.313 和 4.0 ± 0.58（T0）增加至 6.55 ± 0.395 和 6.52 ± 0.45（T6）。两组之间软组织愈合的平均差异无统计学意义，分别为 4.57 ± 0.24 和 3.57 ± 0.509（=0.001）。
两种技术似乎都可用于在严重腐烂的下颌磨牙中进行牙种植。然而，即刻种植的拔牙前根间种植床预备在初始种植体稳定性和骨保存方面可能具有优势。然而，需要进一步的研究来证实这些发现。
除了不会干扰牙种植体放置的轻微并发症外，这两种技术都是治疗严重腐烂的下颌磨牙的替代方法。
Zotero 插件