Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Muntean, Marcel
dc.date.accessioned 2020-07-08T05:48:39Z
dc.date.available 2020-07-08T05:48:39Z
dc.date.issued 2018
dc.identifier.citation MUNTEAN, Marcel. Immediate implant placement after extraction. In: MedEspera: the 7th Internat. Medical Congress for Students and Young Doctors: abstract book. Chișinău: S. n., 2018, p. 217. en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://medespera.asr.md/wp-content/uploads/Abastract-Book-2018.pdf
dc.identifier.uri http://repository.usmf.md/handle/20.500.12710/11124
dc.description Department of Maxillo-facial Surgery and Oral Implantology, Nicolae Testemitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy of the Republic of Moldova en_US
dc.description.abstract Introduction. Nowadays, the implant-prosthetic treatment is a globally accepted, well-defined rehabilitation option for edentulous patients. According to the classical implantation method, the implants are installed in two stages, after the final cure of the post-operative alveolar (6-12 months after extraction). During this time, the alveolar apophysis is atrophic, especially on the vestibular side, and the implant installation becomes difficult. Considering patient’s expectations and requests for reducing the number of procedures and increasing the aesthetic results, a widely recommended procedure is the immediate implantation. A tooth extraction followed by dental implant insertion and a fixed temporary restoration has many advantages for soft tissue preservation. This study describes the surrounding implant structures, their advantages and disadvantages, contraindications and specific features of the immediate implant placement regarding the post extraction alveolar ridge anatomical and structural elements. Aim of the study. Determination of efficiency of immediate implantation versus the classic method of implantation. Materials and methods. The study included 20 patients- 9 males and 11 females, aged between 27 and 60 years old, with 20 extracted teeth. The group of 20 patients was divided into 2 groups. There were 10 patients in the two-step implantation protocol group and 10 patients in one-step implantation protocol group. Results. At the end of the first year, in the group of patients with the two-step implantation method, all implants had good stability, except of one lost implant at the end of the second month. We determined the loss of bone tissue of 1.0 ± 0.70 mm after the radiological control. Implants in the one-step implantation group were clinically stable without mobility. Loss of bone tissue was 0.8 ± 0.40 mm after 1 year. Conclusions. Planned and executed correctly, immediate implant placement after extraction can offer a range of benefits, such as: reduced number of procedures, preservation of the width and height of the alveolar bone, preservation of soft tissue, obtaining an ideal location for the implant. en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher MedEspera en_US
dc.subject tooth extraction en_US
dc.subject bone desorption en_US
dc.subject implantation en_US
dc.title Immediate implant placement after extraction en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • MedEspera 2018
    The 7th International Medical Congress for Students and Young Doctors, May 3-5, 2018

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics