4.1 Article

Long-Term Results of Implants Immediately Placed Into Extraction Sockets Grafted With β-Tricalcium Phosphate: A Retrospective Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 71, 期 2, 页码 E63-E68

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.09.022

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this 10 year retrospective study was to evaluate the crestal bone loss around immediate implant placed in tricalcium phosphate (TCP) grafted extraction sockets Materials and Methods: Data were collected from files of 58 patients (33 females, 25 males, average age 54.78 years) undergoing immediate implant placement into fresh extraction socket with or without the use of TCP (Cerasorb, Curasan AG, Kleinostheim, Germany) grafting. After implant placement, horizontal gaps larger than 1.5 mm between the implant surface and the bony plate were grafted with TCP without the use of a membrane, while smaller gaps were not grafted. Two hundred fifty-four implants were inserted: 79 were placed immediately with the use of beta-TCP as grafting material (group A), 175 were placed in healed extraction sites, with 61 implants placed with the use of beta-TCP graft material (group B), and 114 implants were placed without any grafting material (group C). Bone loss recordings were performed using periapical radiography. Measurements were performed from the neck of the implant to level of the surrounding bone in the vertical dimension. Results: No implant was lost during the follow-up period. Statistical analysis showed no correlation between implant placement timing (delayed or immediate), the use of bone graft, and extent of bone loss. Conclusion: The use of TCP (Cerasorb) as a grafting material during immediate implant placement allowed no bone loss in 72.1% of the implants, which was very similar to the nongrafted cases for which implants were placed in favorable conditions. (C) 2013 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71: e63-e68, 2013

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据