Search

This study examined the association between a dental implant and changes in adjacent teeth over time. Electronic health records of 1818 patients who received a dental implant were retrospectively evaluated over 14 years (2005–2019) in a university setting. The status of the adjacent tooth and vertical and horizontal distance from the implant platform to adjacent teeth were determined using digital intraoral radiographs taken at baseline and the last follow-up visit (1–14 years, median 4 years). In total, 1085 dental implants were evaluated. There were 234 instances of a change in the adjacent tooth. Decay was observed in 83 (7.6%) of adjacent teeth; the mean time to development was 4 years (range 1–14 years). Approximately 9% of adjacent teeth received direct restorations, 4.8% received indirect restorations, 1% received endodontic root canal treatment, and 5.6% were extracted. The mean horizontal distance between the implant platform and the adjacent teeth was 3.56 mm; the mean vertical distance from the contact point to the alveolar crest on the tooth side was 6.2 mm at the first time of the reported decay on X ray. These distances did not significantly influence the occurrence of caries. The prevalence of interproximal contact loss was higher on the mesial of the implant crown at 63% compared with 20% on the distal side. This large retrospective analysis identified that teeth adjacent to a dental implant were at risk of decay and changes in their condition. In addition, the implant-to-tooth distance and inadequate emergence profile may contribute as caries risk factors in addition to hygiene and a high sugar level diet. These findings appear essential for clinicians when making treatment decisions and discussing outcomes with patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alveolar ridge preservation maintains ridge dimensions and bone quality for implant placement. The aim of this randomized controlled clinical study is to compare the use of a human amnion-chorion membrane to a collagen membrane in an exposed-barrier ridge preservation technique. Furthermore, this study will determine if intentional membrane exposure compromises ridge dimensions and bone vitality. Forty-three patients requiring extraction and delayed implant placement were randomly assigned into either the experimental or control group. Twenty-one participants received human amnion-chorion membrane (test) during ridge preservation while 22 participants received the collagen membrane (control). In both groups, demineralized freeze-dried bone allografts were used to graft the socket and primary closure was not achieved. The patients underwent implant placement after an average healing period of 19.5 weeks, and 2.7 × 8-mm core bone specimens were obtained for histomorphometric analyses. The clinical ridge dimensions were measured after extraction and at the time of delayed implant placement. No significant difference was observed in the mean vital bone formation between the experimental (51.72 ± 8.46%) and control (49.96 ± 8.31%; P >.05) groups. The bone height and width did not differ, as determined by clinical measurements (P >.05). Using either a human amnion-chorion membrane or type 1 bovine collagen as the open barrier did not change healing, compromise ridge dimensions, or affect bone vitality between the 2 groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]