目的:通过使用拔除前神经根植入床准备与常规拔除后神经根植入床准备,评估下颌磨牙即刻植入(IIP)的植入物稳定性和边缘骨丢失量。
方法:这项随机临床试验是通过两种不同的技术对14名在下颌磨牙区立即种植牙的患者进行的。将所有患者随机分为两组:I组(对照组)接受常规的拔除后神经根植入床准备治疗,和II组(测试)通过预提取的神经根间植入床准备治疗所有手术均由同一外科医生进行。所有患者在术后即刻(T0)进行临床随访,7天(T1),3周(T2),90天(T3),和负荷后3个月(T6)进行愈合,并在T0,T3和T6进行影像学评估。使用SPSS版本(SPSS,IBMInc.,芝加哥,IL),p≤0.05被认为是有统计学意义的指标。
结果:共有7名女性和7名男性患者,平均年龄为32.07±5.87岁。射线照相,两组间边缘性骨丢失的差异无统计学意义。然而,各组在不同的间隔期(T0,T3,T6)之间存在非常显着的统计学差异(p<0.001),平均起点为5.27±0.53,平均起点为5.19±0.72(T0),分别达到7.60±0.89和7.09±0.96(T3),并在(T6)中略微下降7.52±0.79和7.02±0.79。在每组中具有临床意义,在(T0)时平均为3.57±0.313和4.0±0.58,在(T6)时分别增加到6.55±0.395和6.52±0.45。两组之间比较,软组织愈合无统计学差异,平均平均值分别为4.57±0.24和3.57±0.509(p=0.001)。
结论:这两种技术似乎都适用于下颌磨牙严重腐烂的种植牙。然而,用于IIP的预提取的神经根间植入床准备在主要植入物的稳定性和骨保存方面可能具有优势。然而,需要进一步的研究来证实这些发现.
结论:这两种技术都是通过立即种植牙治疗严重腐烂的下颌磨牙的替代方法,除了不干扰种植牙的轻微并发症。如何引用这篇文章:AlzaibakLMA,Abdel-MonemTM,ElgoharyNM,etal.下颌骨不同神经根间截骨术即刻植入:一项随机临床研究。JContempDentPract2024;25(4):303-312。
OBJECTIVE: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.