4.4 Article

A retrospective study on ultra-wide diameter dental implants for immediate molar replacement

Journal

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 879-887

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12759

Keywords

dental implant; immediate placement; ultra-wide

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Although immediate implant placement for single rooted teeth is well documented, the prognosis of ultra-wide implants in molar sockets lacks data. Purpose To evaluate the outcome of ultra-wide implants, immediately placed in molar sockets. Materials and Methods Patients treated with immediate ultra-wide diameter implants that have been in function for at least 40 months, were invited for a clinical evaluation. A radiograph was taken to measure marginal bone loss. Probing depths as well as plaque and bleeding scores were recorded at the implant and contralateral tooth. Crown and soft tissue dimensions were measured, and patients filled out an OHIP-14 questionnaire. Results Eighty-five out of 230 patients (37%) were evaluated. Twenty-eight implants received a bone graft to fill the residual space. Average bone loss was 0.19 mm after a mean follow-up of 67 months, with no significant changes over time (P = 0.170). There was no significant difference in bone loss between the maxilla and mandible (P = 0.797), male or female (P = 0.128), smoking and nonsmoking (P = 0.219), grafted and nongrafted sites (P = 0.098), or the different bio-types (P = 0.404). The distal papillae were significantly higher if a contact point was present (P = 0.002). Plaque was more frequent at the contralateral tooth (P < 0.001), but more bleeding on probing was observed around the implants (P = 0.021). Overall, 63.5% of the patients experienced no problems at all. Conclusion Ultra-wide diameter implants for immediate molar replacement demonstrate little bone loss and stable soft tissue conditions over a 4 to 7-year period.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available