Analysis of using the method of immediate dental implantation

Authors

  • I. Lutskaya
  • I. Pohodenko-Chudakova
  • T. Shevela
  • O. Zinovenko

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33295/1992-576X-2018-2-54-57

Keywords:

immediate dental implantation, osseointegration, ray methods

Abstract

Introduction. Immediate dental implantation makes it possible to maintain the quantity of jaw bone tissue at the area of the removed teeth. Amount of the inflammatory complications in the post-operative period reduces. Method has minimized quantity of operation  and their traumatism. It reduces period of rehabilitation by 4–6 months when using dentures with support for dental implants.
The aim of the work is to analyze the long-term results of immediate dental implantation.
Objects and methods. 65 patients aged 25–68 years were treated. Patients were included in the study according to the following criteria: 1) one or two implants within a single segment (by using method of immediate dental implantation on the lower or upper jaw). Radiation methods of investigation were carried out in dynamics: 1-st study before surgery – dental implantation; 2-nd through 6 months; 3-rd – 12 months after the operation.
Results. All implants were osseointegrated. Jaw bone tissue uniformly adhered to the entire surface of the implants, pathological bone resorption was absent.
The conclusion. Immediate dental implantation is used in clinical situations when the gingival volume is saved, there is no atrophy of the alveolar bone, oral mucosa isn’t thinned. There are no clinical signs of the pathological process in the periapical zone of the removed tooth.
Key words: immediate dental implantation, osseointegration, ray methods.

References

1. Aykac Yasar. Features of individual hygiene of an oral cavity at patients with dental
implants // Stomatolog-praktic.– 2014. – №2. – P. 32–33.
2. Branemark, P. Osseointegration and its experimental background / P.I. Branemark //
J. Pros. Dent. – 1993. – Vol. 50. – P. 399–412.
3. Burrows R. S. Risk factors in implant treatment planning. European Journal for
Dental Implantologists. 2013; 1: 74–79.
4. Chicurel, M. Bacterial biofilms and infections. Slimebusters / M. Chicurel //
Nature. – 2000. – Vol. 408, № 6810. – P. 284–286.
5. Claudio Cacaci, Andreas Schlegel, Jцrg Neugebauer, Frank Seidel. Orale Implantologie
(Checklisten Zahnmedizin). – Georg Thieme Verlag: Stuttgart, New York, 2006
6. Hall J., A controlled, cross-sectional exploratory study on markers for the plasminogen
system and inflammation in crevicular fluid samples from healthy, mucositis and
periimplantitis sites. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2015; 2: 153–166.
7. John A. Hobkink, Roger M. Watson, Lioyd S.S. Searson Introducing Dental
Implants. 2010; pp. 70–78.
8. Lutskaya I.K., Zinivenko O.G., Korzhev A.O., Nazarov I.E. A team approach to
implant dentistry // Abstract book 4Th International Congress USSI EDI, 14–15.05.2015. –
P. 27–30.
9. Miguel de Araъjo Nobre M., Mano Azul A., Rocha E., Malу P., Risk factors of periimplant
pathology. European Journal Oral Sciences. 2015; no. 123 (3): pp. 131–139.
10. Shatkin T.E., Petrotto C.A. Mini dental implants: awestoraspecanalysis of 5640
implants placed a 12-years period. CompendContinEduc Dent. 2012; 33 Spec 3: 2–9.

Downloads

Published

2018-06-20

Issue

Section

IMPLANTOLOGY