CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF IMMEDIATE IMPLANT PLACEMENT FOLLOWING TOOTH EXTRACTION USING PHYSICS FORCEPS | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 17, Volume 41, Issue 1, April 2016, Page 105-110 PDF (743.81 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59184 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Abou-ayasha Khaled K.* ; Ayyad Sherif S.* ; Eldibany Riham M.* | ||||
| Bachelor of dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, 6th of October University, Giza, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: A traumatic dental extraction preserves bone, gingival architecture, and allows for the option of future or immediate dental implant placement. A number of tools and techniques have been proposed for minimally invasive tooth removal such as the physics forceps. The biomechanical design of the physics forceps decreases the incidence of root fracture, and maintains the buccal bone plate, which is essential for the proper healing of an immediately placed dental implant. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to clinically and radiologically evaluate immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets of maxillary anterior teeth following extraction by physics forceps. MATERIALS AND METHODS:10 adult patients seeking immediate implant placement in anterior maxillary region were selected and randomly allocated into two groups; a study group: included 5 patients, in this group extraction was done using physics forceps, and a control group: included 5 patients, in this group extraction was done using conventional forceps. RESULTS: Clinical results revealed that there was statistically no significant difference between the two groups according to plaque and gingival indices throughout the follow up period. There was no mobility of the implants in both groups. Interproximal papillae of all cases were intact during implant placement and throughout the study. According to the probing depth ,there was a statistically significant difference in favor to the study group immediately and after one week then became non significant after 1, 3 and 6 months. Radiographic results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in favor to the study group, Immediately post-operative, then, became non significant after 3 and 6 months in relation to the mean values of both bone density and marginal bone level. CONCLUSION: Immediate implant placement following tooth extraction using Physics forceps showed superior results in the immediate post-operative phase only. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Atraumatic extraction; physics forceps; conventional forceps; immediate implantation | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Schwartz-Arade D, Yani Y, Levin L, Kaffe I. A radiographic evaluation of cervical bone loss associated with immediate and delayed implants placed for fixed restorations in edentulous jaws. J Periodontol 2004; 75:652-7.
2. Convai U, Cornelini R, Baroni A. Bucco-lingual bone remodeling around implants placed into immediate extraction sockets : a case series. J Periodontol 2004; 74:168-73.
3. Ebenezer V, Balakrishnan K, Asir RV, Sragunar B. Immediate placement of endosseous implants into the extraction sockets. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015; 7(1):234- 7.
4. Papadimitriou DE, Geminiani A, Zahavi T, and Ercoli C. Sonosurgery for atraumatic tooth extraction: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 108(6): 339-43.
5. Babbush CA. A new atraumatic system for tooth removal and immediate implant restoration. Implant Dent 2007; 16:139-45.
6. Dym H, Weiss A. Exodontia: Tips and Techniques for Better Outcome. Dent Clin N Am. 2012; 56: 245-266.
7. Vankateshwar PG, Padhye NM, Khosla RA, Kakkar TS, Complications Of Exodontia: A Retrospective Study. Indian Journal Of Dental Research.2011; 22(5)
8. Quayle AA. Atraumatic removal of teeth and root fragments in dental implantology. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5:293-6.
9. Misch CE, Perez H. Atraumatic extractions: a biologic rationale. Dent Today 2008;27(8):100-1.
10. Nazarian A. An efficient approach to full-mouth extractions. Dent Today. 2011; 30(8):94–6
11.Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res 2008; 31: 165-9.
12. Silness J, Loe H. periodontal disease in pregnancy II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand 1964; 22: 121-35.
13. Loe H, Silness J.Periodontal disease in pregnancy I. Prevalence and severity. Acta Odontol Scand 1963; 21: 523-51.
14. Mckinney RV & koth DL. The single crystal sapphire endosteal dental implant. Material characteristics and 18 months experimental animal trials. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 7:69-77.
15.Clavind L & Loe H. Errors in clinical assessment of periodontal destruction. J Periodontol 1967;2:180-86.
16.Jemt T, Regeneration of the gingival papillae after single implant treatment. Int J Periodont Dent Res. 1997; 17:327-333.
17. Golden R. Less than four minute extraction of any tooth. Dent Today. 2011; 30(8): 82-4.
18. Scull P. Beak and Bumper. The Dentist. 2010;28: 56-61.
19. Yehea M, Sharara A, Eldibany R. Clinical evaluation of socket preservation following extraction of maxillary and mandibular single and multi-rooted teeth using physics forceps. Oral and Maxillofac Dent Res 2015;38- 54.
20. Kosinski T. Use of Innovative Physics Forceps for Extraction in Preparation for Dental Implants. Implant News and Views 2012; 14(2): 1-9. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 332 PDF Download: 455 |
||||
