| Background:Dental defect and dentition defect are the common diseases and frequently-occurring diseases in oral medicine,with a high prevalence in the world.The most direct effect of tooth defects or dentition defects in the posterior area is the difficulty of chewing.The pursuit of the goal is how to shorten the time of tooth loss,minimally invasive treatment in the posterior area.Immediate implant with flapless surgical technique refers to atraumatic extraction techniques and flapless elevation.Immediate implantation technology broke through the classic theory of osseointegration.Waiting period between tooth extraction and implant placement is no longer required.The healing of the wound and the implant was completed in the same period.The technique offers considerable advantages for patients.The most obvious one is reduction of treatment time.Reducing the absorption of bone tissue and soft tissue around implants.Currently most studies on immediate implant placement describe cases in the aesthetic region.However,few studies report tooth extraction followed by immediate implant placement in the posterior region.The clinical of immediate implant placement in molar regions might exsit several risk factors,such as the difficulty in achieving primary implant stability in fresh molar extraction sockets due to placement of a cylindrical implant might not match the shape of the tooth extraction socket.On the other hand,the absence of keratinized tissue and deficiency of complete soft tissue closure over the extraction socket may affect the outcome of immediate implant placement adversely.So solving the difficulties of immediate implant technology would be better for the benefit of patients.Objective:To compare the changes of marginal bone resportion after six months,1year and 2 years of postoperative between the immediate implant placement and the delayed implantation.As well as to compare the changes of marginal bone resportion after six months,1year and 2years of three different implants systems used in the immediate implant of posterior teeth.To investigate the differences in bone tissue around immediate implant and delayed implant.The effects of different implantsystems on the bone tissue around the implants.To provide the theoretical basis and the choice of implant systems for the feasibility of immediate dental placement.Methods:A total of 52 patients were recruited randomly from Department of Implant dentisitry,School and Hospital of Stomatology,Ji Lin University from January 2012 to December 2013.The patients were devided into two groups.immediate implant placement group and delayed implant placement group.All implants were evaluated via X-ray after surgery,6 months after implatation,and 1 year,2 years after prostheses placement,and the height of marginal bone was measured in 6 month after implatation,1 year and 2 years after prostheses placement.Results:1.The immediate implant gruop 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone improvement were(1.35±1.12)mm,the delayed implant group 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone resorption were(-0.52±0.47)mm,there were no statistic significances between two groups(P>0.05).2.The immediate implant gruop 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone improvement were(1.46±1.17)mm,the delayed implant group 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone resorption were(-0.46±0.44)mm,there were no statistic significances between two groups(P>0.05).3.The immediate implant gruop 1 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone improvement were(2.16±1.73)mm,the delayed implant group 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone resorption were(-0.69±0.58)mm,there were no statistic significances between two groups(P>0.05).4.The immediate implant gruop 1 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone improvement were(1.94±1.16)mm,the delayed implant group 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone resorption were(-0.60±0.45)mm,there were no statistic significances between two groups(P>0.05).5.The immediate implant gruop 2 years after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone improvementwere(2.53±1.65)mm,the delayed implant group 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone resorption were(-0.97±0.78)mm,there were no statistic significances between two groups(P>0.05).6.The immediate implant gruop 1 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone improvement were(2.32±1.68)mm,the delayed implant group 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone resorption were(-0.72±0.63)mm,there were no statistic significances between two groups(P>0.05).7.The immediate implant gruop 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone improvement were(1.35±1.12)mm,and the immediate implant gruop 1 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone improvement were(2.16±1.73)mm,there were statistic significances between two groups(P<0.05).8.The immediate implant gruop 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone improvement were(1.35±1.12)mm,and the immediate implant group 2 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginalbone improvement were(2.53±1.65)mm,there were statistic significances between two groups(P<0.05).9.The immediate implant gruop 1 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone improvement were(2.16±1.73)mm,and the immediate implant group 2 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the mesial marginal bone improvement were(2.53±1.65)mm,there were no statistic significances between two groups(P>0.05).10.The immediate implant gruop 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone improvement were(1.46±1.17)mm,and the immediate implant gruop 1 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone improvement were(1.94±1.16)mm,there were statistic significances between two groups(P<0.05).11.The immediate implant gruop 6 months after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone improvement were(1.46±1.17)mm,and the immediate implant group 2 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone improvement were(2.32±1.68)mm,there were statistic significances between two groups(P<0.05).12.The immediate implant gruop 1 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone improvement were(1.94±1.16)mm,and the immediate implant group 2 year after surgery compared with the time of postoperative the distal marginal bone improvement were(2.32±1.68)mm,there were no statistic significances between two groups(P>0.05).13.After 6 months of postoperative the Straumann systems compared with 3i and Replace there were no statistic significances differences of mesial or distal marginal bone improvement in the immediate implant group(P>0.05).the 3i systems compared with Replace there were no statistic significances differences of mesial or distal marginal bone improvement in the immediate implant group(P>0.05).14.After 1 year of postoperative the Straumann systems compared with 3i and Replace there were no statistic significances differences of mesial or distal marginal bone improvement in the immediate implant group(P>0.05).the 3i systems compared with Replace there were no statistic significances differences of mesial or distal marginal bone improvement in the immediate implant group(P>0.05).15.After 2 years of postoperative the Straumann systems compared with 3i and Replace there were statistic significances differences of mesial marginal bone improvement in the immediate implant group(P<0.05).the 3i systems compared with Replace there were no statistic significances differences of mesial marginal bone improvement in the immediate implant group(P>0.05).16.After 2 years of postoperative the Straumann systems compared with 3i and Replace there were no statistic significances differences of distal marginal bone improvement in the immediate implant group(P>0.05).the 3i systems compared with Replace there were no statistic significances differences of distal marginal bone improvement in the immediate implant group(P>0.05).Conclusion:1.immediate growth of marginal bone showed an increasing trend within 2 years,the most increased in 6 months,and basically stable after12 months.The marginal bone of delayed planting showed a trend of absorption within 2 years,absorbed most within 6 months,and remained stable after 12 months.2.different implant systems may have an effect on immediate implantation of marginal bone tissue.3.different implant systems may have an effect on immediate implantation of marginal bone tissue. |
PDF Full Text Request