OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
BMC oral health
Oct 07, 2024;24 (1): 1190.

Soft and hard tissue evaluation for vestibular socket therapy of immediately placed implants in infected and non-infected sockets: a 1-year prospective cohort study.

Abdelsalam Elaskary, Abdelrahman Thabet, Mai Hussin, Iman Abd-ElWahab Radi
Author Information
  1. Abdelsalam Elaskary: Private Practice, Alexandria, Egypt.
  2. Abdelrahman Thabet: Endodontology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
  3. Mai Hussin: Head of the Research Department, Ministry of Health, Alexandria, Egypt.
  4. Iman Abd-ElWahab Radi: Professor of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University; Vice dean of School of Dentistry, Badya University; Member of Evidence-Based Dentistry Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, 11 ElSaraya St, EL Manial, Cairo, 11553, Egypt. iman.abdelwahab@dentistry.cu.edu.eg.
PMID: 39375634 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04905-3

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immediate implant placement using vestibular socket therapy (VST) proved to offer a successful treatment option in compromised sockets. However, the presence of active signs infection complicates immediate implants in sockets with defective labial plates, due to the possible contamination of the implant or the bone graft with existing infected tissues or oral environment via the fistula. This study, therefore, aims to explore the success of immediate implant placement using VST in managing infected compromised sockets.
METHODS: We included 26 age- and sex-matched patients with 41 implants sites. Thirteen patients had 19 infected (group I) and 13 had 21 non-infected type 2 sockets (group N). Both groups were treated using vestibular socket therapy (VST) and a 6-day protocol. Implant survival, changes in facial bone thickness, and mid, mesial, and distal mucosal levels were evaluated 1 year after implant placement. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare both groups. Furthermore, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to study changes with time within each group. The statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: All implants survived; no significant difference was found between groups N and I regarding apical, mid, and crestal bone thickness and soft tissue level, except at the mesial papilla, where the recession was significantly more in group N than in group I. Changes over time were statistically significant in the apical, mid, and crestal bone thickness in both groups. The mean bone thickness gain ranged from 0.85 to 2.4 mm and 0.26-1.63 mm in groups I and N, respectively. Additionally, the mean mucosal recession ranged from 0.29 to 0.51 mm and 0.39-1.47 mm in groups I and N, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study immediate implant placement in type II infected sockets using the 6-day protocol and VST achieved 100% implant survival, while maintaining the regenerated facial bone thickness with minimal mucosal recession.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov at 3/10/2021 (registration number NCT04787224).

Keywords

Bone graft Guided bone regeneration Immediate placement Infected sockets Soft tissue level Type II sockets Vestibular socket therapy

Associated Data

ClinicalTrials.gov | NCT04787224

References

  1. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002 Jul-Aug;17(4):498-506 [PMID: 12182292]
  2. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012 Oct;32(5):e169-73 [PMID: 22754910]
  3. J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Jul;34(7):610-7 [PMID: 17433044]
  4. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:186-215 [PMID: 24660198]
  5. Acta Odontol Scand. 2018 Jul;76(5):338-345 [PMID: 29611763]
  6. Materials (Basel). 2024 Jan 27;17(3): [PMID: 38591482]
  7. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Jul/Aug;35(4):799-807 [PMID: 32724934]
  8. J Oral Implantol. 2013 Feb;39(1):98-102 [PMID: 21767206]
  9. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Oct;19(5):833-840 [PMID: 28744958]
  10. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999 Jun;10(3):185-94 [PMID: 10522178]
  11. J Periodontol. 2010 Jun;81(6):801-8 [PMID: 20192616]
  12. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Nov;67(11):2476-84 [PMID: 19837321]
  13. Odontology. 2019 Jul;107(3):353-359 [PMID: 30617638]
  14. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021 Jan-Feb;36(1):146-153 [PMID: 33600536]
  15. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015 Jul-Aug;36(7):516, 518-20, 522 passim [PMID: 26247445]
  16. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014 Oct 01;6(4):e384-8 [PMID: 25593661]
  17. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019 Jul 1;24(4):e518-e528 [PMID: 31232386]
  18. Periodontol 2000. 1999 Feb;19:59-73 [PMID: 10321216]
  19. Ann Periodontol. 2000 Dec;5(1):166-74 [PMID: 11885177]
  20. J Oral Implantol. 2013 Jun;39(3):399-405 [PMID: 23834016]
  21. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2021 Aug 20;14(3):307-320 [PMID: 34415130]
  22. J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Jun;39(6):582-9 [PMID: 22509794]
  23. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009 Sep 15;90(4):993-8 [PMID: 18655136]
  24. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;36(5):645-53 [PMID: 27560669]
  25. Braz Dent J. 2009;20(3):254-8 [PMID: 19784474]
  26. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2007 Mar;19(2):99-104; quiz 106 [PMID: 17491484]
  27. Odontology. 2023 Jan;111(1):255-262 [PMID: 36074306]
  28. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Feb;13(1):20-9 [PMID: 12005141]
  29. Periodontol 2000. 2023 Oct;93(1):9-25 [PMID: 38194351]
  30. Implant Dent. 2012 Aug;21(4):287-94 [PMID: 22814552]
  31. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Apr;44(4):507-12 [PMID: 25541015]
  32. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012 Sep;12(3 Suppl):187-8 [PMID: 23253844]
  33. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Jul;65(7 Suppl 1):13-9 [PMID: 17586345]
  34. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2019;12(4):469-480 [PMID: 31781700]
  35. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022 Oct;24(5):559-568 [PMID: 35811090]
  36. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1999 Jun;19(3):279-87 [PMID: 10635174]
  37. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016 Dec;18(6):1075-1083 [PMID: 26676203]
  38. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 May-Jun;19(3):393-8 [PMID: 15214224]
  39. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Dec;20(12):1375-85 [PMID: 19681967]
  40. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Nov;120(5):658-667 [PMID: 29961634]
  41. J Lasers Med Sci. 2020 Spring;11(2):167-173 [PMID: 32273958]
  42. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1990 Dec;1(1):33-40 [PMID: 2099210]
  43. J Clin Periodontol. 2009 May;36(5):428-33 [PMID: 19419444]
  44. PLoS Med. 2007 Oct 16;4(10):e297 [PMID: 17941715]
  45. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023 Dec;25(6):1164-1177 [PMID: 37592396]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Dental Implants, Single-Tooth
Immediate Dental Implant Loading
Prospective Studies
Tooth Socket
Journal Article Observational Study

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0socketsboneimplantgroupsplacementinfectedstudygroupNthickness0usingsockettherapyVSTimplantsvestibularimmediateprotocolmidmucosalleveltissuerecessionImmediatecompromisedgraftpatientsnon-infectedtype26-daysurvivalchangesfacialmesialtestusedtimesignificantapicalcrestalmeanrangedrespectivelyIISoftBACKGROUND:provedoffersuccessfultreatmentoptionHoweverpresenceactivesignsinfectioncomplicatesdefectivelabialplatesduepossiblecontaminationexistingtissuesoralenvironmentviafistulathereforeaimsexploresuccessmanagingMETHODS:included26age-sex-matched41sitesThirteen191321treatedImplantdistallevelsevaluated1yearMann-WhitneyUcompareFurthermoreWilcoxonsigned-rankwithinstatisticalsignificancesetP < 005RESULTS:surviveddifferencefoundregardingsoftexceptpapillasignificantlyChangesstatisticallygain854 mm26-163 mmAdditionally2951 mm39-147 mmCONCLUSION:Withinlimitationsachieved100%maintainingregeneratedminimalTRIALREGISTRATION:registeredclinicaltrialsgov3/10/2021registrationnumberNCT04787224hardevaluationimmediatelyplacedsockets:1-yearprospectivecohortBoneGuidedregenerationInfectedTypeVestibular

Similar Articles

Cited By