Premium
Microcomputed Tomographic Analysis of the Alveolar Ridge Alteration around Extraction Sites with and without Immediate Implants Placement: In Vivo Study
Author(s) -
AlHezaimi Khalid,
AlShabeeb Munirah Saleh,
AlAskar Mansour,
Javed Fawad,
Nooh Nasser,
AlRasheed Abdulaziz,
Babay Nadir,
AlHamdan Khalid Saleh,
Wang Hom Lay
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00471.x
Subject(s) - alveolar ridge , beagle , dentistry , medicine , maxilla , implant , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , dental alveolus , sagittal plane , dehiscence , orthodontics , nuclear medicine , surgery , anatomy , botany , biology , genus
Background: The aim was to assess the alveolar ridge alteration around extraction sites with and without immediate implants according to extraction socket classification (ESC) using microcomputed tomography (micro‐CT). Material and Methods: Ten beagle dogs (mean age and weight: 24 ± 0.83 months and 13.8 ± 0.49 kg, respectively) were randomly divided into three groups according to the ESC. In Group 1 (ESC‐I), bilateral first and third premolars were extracted and replaced with immediate implants. In Group 2 (ESC‐II), two adjacent premolars were extracted with one immediate implant placement in the mesial socket in the maxilla and in the distal socket in the mandible. In Group 3 (ESC‐III), three adjacent teeth were extracted and an immediate implant was placed in the central socket. Primary closure was achieved using resorbable sutures. Buccal sites with dehiscence defects were excluded. After 4 months, subjects were sacrificed and alveolar ridge widths were measured at 1 mm interval in axial and sagittal views, using micro‐CT in sites with and without immediate implants. Results: In sites without immediate implant placement, alveolar ridge width was significantly higher in Group 1(6.1 ± 1.35 mm) than Group 3 (4.14 ± 1.53 mm) ( p < .05). In sites with immediate implant placement, the alveolar ridge width was higher among sites in Group 1 (6.4 ± 3.8 mm) than Group 2 (4.8 ± 0.46 mm) ( p < .05) and Group 3 (5.02 ± 0.84 mm) ( p < .05). Overall, between each corresponding group in both sites with and without immediate implant placement at 1 mm thickness, there was no significant difference in the alveolar ridge widths. Conclusion: With the exception of Group 1 (ESC‐I), immediate implant placement did not prevent or minimize bone remodeling in extraction sites according to ESC.