DC Field | Value | Language |
dc.contributor.author | Cook, Maria | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-08T11:39:05Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2022-06-08T11:39:05Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | COOK, Maria. Particularities of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation in the aesthetic zone of the upper jaw. In: MedEspera: the 9th International Medical Congress for Students and Young Doctors: abstract book. Chișinău: S. n., 2022, p. 362. ISBN 978-9975-3544-2-4. | en_US |
dc.identifier.isbn | 978-9975-3544-2-4 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://medespera.asr.md/en/books | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://repository.usmf.md/handle/20.500.12710/20940 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Introduction. Oral implantology is one of the dental sciences that is developing at a very fast pace. As a
result of the development of social media, the emergence of new beauty trends, and the accessibility of
information across all social channels, patients have greater demands and expectations for treatment
outcomes beyond human biological limitations. Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation in the aesthetic zone faces
particular challenges and difficulties determined by these new standards in the modern world.
Aim of study. To study and determine the peculiarities of bone atrophy and implant rehabilitation of the
aesthetic zone in the upper jaw and to determine the optimal method of implantation in the aesthetic zone.
Methods and materials. In this study we used research methods and analysis of national and international
existing literature on implant-prosthetic rehabilitation in the aesthetic zone of the maxilla. IBN, Google
Scholar and PubMed platforms were used to search for articles. Thirteen clinical cases of patients who
visited the University Dental Clinic No. 2 with single tooth edentulous in the aesthetic zone of the upper
jaw were also analyzed.
Results. Following the analysis of the articles and the patients who visited the clinic, immediate and delayed
implantation were considered as treatment options. In both cases the implant survival rate was 95%. On
average, marginal bone loss was 0.56 mm for immediate and 0.67 mm for delayed implants. Each method
has its own indications, and by understanding tissue biology correctly we can distinguish when one method
or the other would be preferred.
Conclusion. There is no difference in the long-term integration of the implant in the aesthetic zone. In the
case of both immediate and delayed implant placement the osseo-integration rate is 95%. However, due to
the presence of bone resorption mechanisms that are activated following extraction, it is better for the
patient to receive immediate implantation, within the limits of bone quality of the implant site and the
general condition of the patient. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Nicolae Testemitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy of the Republic of Moldova, Association of Medical Students and Residents | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | MedEspera: The 9th International Medical Congress for Students and Young Doctors, May 12-14, 2022, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova | en_US |
dc.title | Particularities of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation in the aesthetic zone of the upper jaw | en_US |
dc.type | Other | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | MedEspera 2022
|