| BackgroundCompared with traditional fixed bridges and movable dentures to restore missing teeth,implant restoration has the advantages of not damaging adjacent teeth,high chewing efficiency,and higher patient comfort.At present,implant restoration technology has been proved to be an effective and highly successful treatment method.With the development of implant restoration technology,implant restoration is gradually used in the restoration of missing teeth in patients with chronic periodontitis.For patients with chronic periodontitis to restore missing teeth,traditional implants require implants to be implanted after the extraction socket is healed.Although most clinical cases have better postoperative results,However,there are also risks of soft and hard tissue defects caused by the healing of tooth extraction wounds.Immediate implantation can reduce the number of operations,shorten the repair treatment time and preserve soft and hard tissues to a certain extent.The molar area is responsible for the main chewing function.Immediate implantation can repair missing teeth as soon as possible and restore the chewing function,thereby improving the patient’s quality of life.Previous studies showed that patients with chronic periodontitis had more infections in the tissues around the implant,the probability of biological complications,and the amount of bone resorption at the edges than those with periodontal health.And the incidence of diseases around implants is positively correlated with the severity of periodontitis.It is concluded that the failure rate of implant restoration in periodontitis patients is higher than that in periodontal healthy patients.However,the results of some studies currently found that patients with periodontitis who received implants immediately after early or complete periodontal treatment at the same time achieved the similar implant success rate and the short-term clinical efficacy of implant restorations as compared with periodontal healthy patients These studies suggests the feasibility of immediate implant restoration for patients with periodontitis.Therefore,this study is aimed to explore the feasibility of immediate implantation in the molar area of chronic periodontitis and an analysis of the clinical efficacy of implant restoration.ObjectiveEfficacy of immediate implantation in the molar area of patients with chronic periodontitis would be compared with that of immediate implantation in the molar area of patients with periodontal health,providing the evidences for immediate implant restoration surgery in the molar area of patients with chronic periodontitis.Materials and MethodsParticipants who underwent a single immediate implant restoration in the molar area from June 2020 to March 2021 at the Dental Clinic of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University were selected for prospective study.Only patients without systemic diseases were included and divided into two groups: one group was the experimental group,patients with chronic periodontitis,and the other group was the control group,patients with periodontal health.One week before surgery,patients in the experimental group underwent periodontal systemic treatment.In the implant surgery,two groups of patients received a single implant in the molar area immediately after the extraction of a single tooth,and the implant was repaired 3 months after the operation.Imaging examination was used to measure the marginal bone resorption of the two groups of patients at 3 months after implant placement and 3 months after crown restoration,At the same time,collecting the gingival index,modified plaque index,periodontal probing depth,and probing bleeding percentage after 3 months of crown restoration,Statistical analysis was performed on the two groups of data with SPSS25.0,and the "T" test of two independent samples was used for comparison.There is a statistical difference at P<0.05,which means there is statistical significance.If P<0.01,there is a significant statistical difference.P>0.05 means no statistical difference.ResultsFifty patients were included in this study.A total of 50 implants were implanted immediately after tooth extraction,and a total of 35 implants were implanted in the experimental group.Among them,22 implants were implanted in male patients and 13 implants were implanted in female patients,with an average age of(45±2.4)years.The implant success rate is 100%;A total of 15 implants were implanted in the control group,including 8 implants in male patients and 7 implants in female patients.The average age was(42±1.8)years,and the implant success rate was 100%.Marginal bone resorption(MBR): The average marginal bone resorption of the experimental group was(0.49±0.12)mm at 3 months after implant placement.3months after crown restoration,the average MBR of the experimental group was(0.69±0.11)mm,and the average MBR of the control group was(0.44±0.11)mm at 3months after implant placement.3 months after crown restoration,The average MBR of the control group was(0.68±0.12)mm.The "T" test of two independent samples was used to compare the average MBR of the two groups at 3 months after surgery and 3 months after crown repair.The P values were all> 0.05,and the difference was not statistically significant.Gingival Index(GI): The two groups of patients returned for 3 months after crown restoration.The average gingival index of the experimental group was0.32±0.61,and the average of the control group was 0.36±0.68.P=0.814(P>0.05),the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.The mean value of probing depth(PD): the average value of the experimental group was(2.54±0.43)mm after 3 months of crown restoration;the average of(2.45±0.28)mm after 3 months of crown restoration in the control group,P=0.38(P>0.05),the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.Plaque Index(PLI): the experimental group had an average of 0.71±0.70 at 3months of crown restoration,and the average of 0.76±0.68 at 3 months of crown restoration in the control group,P =0.16(P>0.05),the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.Percentage of Bleeding on probing(BOP)sites: 3 cases of BOP(+)in the experimental group at 3 months of crown repair,8.6% of BOP,and 1 case of BOP(+)in the control group at 3 months of crown repair.The percentage of BOP was 6.7%,P=0.26(P>0.05),the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant.ConclusionsWithin the limits of this study,periodontitis being under control,immediate implantation in the molar area will not increase the incidence of peri-implant inflammation,and produce the same favorable type of tissue integration in patients with chronic periodontitis. |
PDF Full Text Request