International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2019 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Customized vs Conventional Abutments in Healing Fresh Extraction Dental Sockets on Maxillary Anterior Teeth

Menchini-Fabris Giovanni-Battista, Covani Ugo, Toti Paolo, Crespi Giovanni, Rubino Luigi, Crespi Roberto

Keywords : Cone-beam computed tomography, Customized abutment, Dental abutment, Dental implant, Immediate dental implant loading, Immediate implant placement

Citation Information : Giovanni-Battista M, Ugo C, Paolo T, Giovanni C, Luigi R, Roberto C. Customized vs Conventional Abutments in Healing Fresh Extraction Dental Sockets on Maxillary Anterior Teeth. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2019; 9 (3):82-87.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1239

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-09-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present retrospective study on fresh socket implants in esthetic region was to compare customized vs standard healing abutments, evaluating alveolar bone assessment. Materials and methods: Postextractive sockets underwent immediate dental implant placement without filling the voids between the implant surface and socket wall. Width of the alveolar ridge following implant placement with or without customized abutment mimicking the look of the extracted tooth was measured on three-dimensional radiographs before and 3 years after surgery. The statistic is performed with a level of significance of 0.05. Results: In a split-mouth analysis, 22 patients were enrolled with a total of 44 selected maxillary dental implants: 14 incisives, 14 canines, and 16 premolars. An implant survival rate of 100% was reported for all implants after 36 months. 3 years after the implant placement, loss in bone width was registered both for the standard group (−2.18 ± 0.59 mm) and for the custom group (−0.08 ± 0.22 mm), even if dimensional change of the alveolar ridge following the healing procedure appeared in the custom group to be not significant with respect to the standard group. Significant differences were found between groups irrespective of tooth type (p ≤ 0.0001), and among subgroups related to the tooth type (incisor vs both canine and premolar, with p ≤ 0.0124). Conclusion: Custom procedure might help provide a seal over the surgical site to protect the coagulum and to support natural emergence profile for optimal final restorative contours, and in doing so promoting socket volume maintenance.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Evans CD, Chen ST. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19(1):73–80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01413.x.
  2. Hämmerle CH, Araújo MG, Simion M, et al. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and treatment of extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(Suppl 5):80–82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02370.x.
  3. Benic GI, Mokti M, Chen CJ, et al. Dimensions of buccal bone and mucosa at immediately placed implants after 7 years: a clinical and cone beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23(5):560–566. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02253.x.
  4. Morton D, Chen ST, Martin WC, et al. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding optimizing esthetic outcomes in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(Suppl):216–220. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2013.g3.
  5. Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser UC, et al. Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late? Periodontol 2000 2017;73(1):84–102. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12170.
  6. Trimpou G, Weigl P, Krebs M, et al. Rationale for esthetic tissue preservation of a fresh extraction socket by an implant treatment concept simulating a tooth replantation. Dent Traumatol 2010;26(1):105–111. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2009.00831.x.
  7. Castelnuovo J, Sonmez AB. The autogenous immediate implant supported single-tooth restoration: a 5-year follow-up. Eur J Esthet Dent 2012;7(4):382–395.
  8. Tarnow DP, Chu SJ, Salama MA, et al. Flapless postextraction socket implant placement in the esthetic zone: part 1. The effect of bone grafting and/or provisional restoration on facial-palatal ridge dimensional change—a retrospective cohort study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014;34(3):323–331. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1821.
  9. Chu SJ, Hochman MN, Tan-Chu JH, et al. A novel prosthetic device and method for guided tissue preservation of immediate postextraction socket implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014;34(Suppl 3):s9–s17. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1749.
  10. Crespi R, Bruschi GB, Capparé P, et al. The utility of the electric mallet. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25(3):793–795. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000000523.
  11. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Brånemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, ed. Tissue-integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. pp. 201–209.
  12. Crespi R, Fabris GBM, Crespi G, et al. Effects of different loading protocols on the bone remodeling volume of immediate maxillary single implants: a 2- to 3-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34(4):953–962. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6972.
  13. Araujo MG, Linder E, Lindhe J. Bio-Oss collagen in the buccal gap at immediate implants: a 6-month study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01920.x.
  14. Finelle G, Lee SJ. Guided immediate implant placement with wound closure by computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture sealing socket abutment: case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(2):e63–e67. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4770.
  15. Tarnow DT, Chu SJ. Human histologic verification of osseointegration of an immediate implant placed into a fresh extraction socket with excessive gap distance without primary flap closure, graft, or membrane: a case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011;31(5):515–552.
  16. Franchi M, Fini M, Martini D, et al. Biological fixation of endosseous implants. Micron 2005;36(7–8):665–671. DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2005.05.010.
  17. Richard Akin. A new concept in maintaining the emergence profile in immediate posterior implant placement: the anatomic harmony abutment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74(12):2385–2392. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.184.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.