Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2016-03-07, 22:38:59 | version 1.38.0
Volume 2 | Issue 1/2016 21 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation I m pla nt po si ti o ni ng wi thi n e xtracti o n so cke ts References the lingual bone crest at the time of placement compared with the implants at the B-sites. When the original position of the implants was takenintoaccount,similarabsolutevaluesoflin- gualbonecrestresorptionwerefound. At the time of placement, defects were pres- ent opposite the implants. At the B-sites, lingual defectswithmeanvaluesof1.6 mmindepthand 1.2 mm in width were still present after four months of healing. At the L-sites, residual de- fects were also present at both the buccal (1.1 mm) and the lingual (1.6 mm) aspects. At the buccal aspect, the defects lay entirely between the implant surface and the bone wall, while at the lingual aspect, the residual defects were op- posite the implant surface in the apical part and opposite the abutment in the coronal part. In a clinical situation, the implant is generally placed in a lingual position and residual defects may be present after healing. However, their presence maynotbedetectedclinicallyiftheyareverynar- row (≤ 0.5 mm). BIC% was similar at the buccal and lingual aspects, both at the B- and the L-sites, demonstrating that the position of the implantswithintheextractionsocketsdidnotaf- fect the degree of osseointegration. The lingual position affected the height of the periimplant mucosa,whichwasmorecoronalwithrespectto the implant shoulder at the L-sites compared withtheB-sites. Conclusion Inconclusion,atimplantsplacedimmediatelyinto extractionsockets,smallerbuccalexposureabove thebonecrestwilloccurwhenimplantsareplaced inalingualcomparedwithabuccalposition.More- over, implants placed lingually will be located deeper within the extraction sockets compared with those placed buccallywhen the implants are tilted lingually or buccally, respectively, in relation totheaxisofthealveolus. Acknowledgments This study was supported by a grant from the Ariminum Research and DentalEducation Center, Ariminum Odontologica (Rimini, Italy). The im- plantswereprovidedbyNeodent(Curitiba,Brazil). The competent contributions of Mr. Sebastião Bianco, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, in the histological processingarehighlyappreciated. 1. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets versus healed sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis. → J Dent. 2015 Jan;43(1):16–41. 2. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard- tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. → J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Oct;31(10):820–8. 3. Araújo MG, Sukekava F, Wennström JL, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog. → J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Jun;32(6):645–52. 4. Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, Baffone G, Lang NP, Botticelli D. Influence of implant positioning in extraction sockets on osseointegration: histomorphometric analyses in dogs. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan;21(1):43–9. 5. Tomasi C, Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Pjetursson B, Ferrus J, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Bone dimensional variations at implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: a multilevel multivariate analysis. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan;21(1):30–6. 6. Favero G, Lang NP, Favero G, León IG, Salata LA, Botticelli D. Role of teeth adjacent to implants installed immediately into extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Apr;23(4):402–8. 7. Favero G, Botticelli D, Rea M, Pantani F, León IG, Lang NP. Influence of presence or absence of teeth adjacent to implants installed immediately into extraction sockets on peri-implant hard tissue levels: an experimental study in the dog. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Mar;24(3):262–9. 8. Araújo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. → J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Feb;32(2):212–8. 9. Favero G, Botticelli D, Favero G, García B, Mainetti T, Lang NP. Alveolar bony crest preservation at implants installed immediately after tooth extraction: an experimental study in the dog. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jan;24(1):7–12. 10. Pietrokovski J, Massler M. Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction. → J Prosthet Dent. 1967 Jan;17(1):21–7. 11. Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, Bressan E, Botticelli D, Lang NP. Hard tissue formation adjacent to implants of various size and configuration immediately placed into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Sep;21(9):885–90. 12. Caneva M, Botticelli D, Rossi F, Cardoso LC, Pantani F, Lang NP. Influence of implants with different sizes and configurations installed immediately into extraction sockets on peri-implant hard and soft tissues: an experimental study in dogs. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Apr;23(4):396–401. 13. Ferrus J, Cecchinato D, Pjetursson EB, Lang NP, Sanz M, Lindhe J. Factors influencing ridge alterations following immediate implant placement into extraction sockets. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan;21(1):22–9. Volume 2 | Issue 1/201621