{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Immediate Implant Placement with Different Interradicular Osteotomies in the Mandible: A Randomized Clinical Study.
{Author}: Alzaibak LMA;Tawfik MA;Elgohary NM;Abdel-Rahman FH;
{Journal}: J Contemp Dent Pract
{Volume}: 25
{Issue}: 4
{Year}: 2024 Apr 1
暂无{DOI}: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3674
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>To assess the implant stability and amount of marginal bone loss in immediate implant placement (IIP) in mandibular molars by using pre-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation vs conventional post-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>This randomized clinical trial was conducted on fourteen patients who had an immediate dental implant at the mandibular molar area by two different techniques. All patients were divided randomly into two equal groups: Group I (control) was treated with conventional post-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation, and group II (test) was treated by pre-extractive interradicular implant bed preparation All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. All patients were followed up clinically at immediate post-surgery (T0), 7 days (T1), 3 weeks (T2), 90 days (T3), and 3 months after loading (T6) for healing and to evaluate the marginal bone loss radiographically at T0, T3 and T6. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed using the SPSS version (SPSS, IBM Inc., Chicago, IL), and p ≤ 0.05 was considered an indicator of statistical significance.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>A total of 7 female and 7 male patients with a mean age of 32.07 ± 5.87 years. Radiographically, there is no significant statistical difference in comparing between two groups for the marginal bone loss. However, there was a highly significant statistical difference (p < 0.001) in each group between different interval periods (T0, T3, T6) with mean start 5.27 ± 0.53, and 5.19 ± 0.72 at (T0) reaching 7.60 ± 0.89 and 7.09 ± 0.96 at (T3) and slightly decrease of 7.52 ± 0.79 and 7.02 ± 0.79 in (T6) with radiographic evaluation, and it represented clinically in each group with mean 3.57 ± 0.313 and 4.0 ± 0.58 at (T0) increase to 6.55 ± 0.395 and 6.52 ± 0.45 at (T6) for both group respectively. There is no statistically significant difference in soft tissue healing with an average mean of 4.57 ± 0.24 and 3.57 ± 0.509 (p = 0.001) when comparing between both groups respectively.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Both techniques seem useful for dental implant placement in badly decayed mandibular molars. However, pre-extracted interradicular implant bed preparation for IIP might offer advantages in terms of primary implant stability and bone preservation. However, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Both techniques are alternative methods for the treatment of badly decayed mandibular molars by immediate dental implant except for minor complications that do not interfere with dental implant placement. How to cite this article: Alzaibak LMA, Abdel-Monem TM, Elgohary NM, et al. Immediate Implant Placement with Different Interradicular Osteotomies in the Mandible: A Randomized Clinical Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(4):303-312.