Implantes imediatos

THEMATIC | ABSTRACT REVIEW |
Thomas W. Oates, DMD, PhD
University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas
Section Editor: Clark Stanford, DDS, PhD
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Jan-Eirik Ellingsen, DDS, PhD
University of Oslo Oslo, Norway
Emad W. Estafanous, BDS, MSD
The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa
Guy Huynh-Ba, DDS, MS
University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, Texas
Martin Osswald, BDS, MDent
University of Alberta Alberta, Canada

Immediate Implant Placement: Nothing Really Matters?
Immediate
placement is an increasingly attractive approach for implant therapy. However, the factors crit- ical in determining the optimal timing of implant place- ment following tooth extraction remain in question. This review of the published literature over the past 6 months finds the survival and success of im- mediate implant placement comparable with delayed placement in healed sites. Also, these reports suggest that this success is independent of the anatomic lo- cation for placement. For example, Hayacibara et al (2012, epub) provide a retrospective evaluation of im- mediate implant placement in single mandibular mo- lar sites after as long as 8 years. This study observed a 100% success rate for the 74 implants followed. The authors required a minimum of 3 mm width of septal bone and reported that dehiscences were seen in all cases, yet clinical healing was consistently uneventful. Felice et al (2011) provided a short-term comparison of immediate and delayed placement of implants in maxillary premolar and anterior sites. This study eval- uated implant failures as well as esthetics and patient satisfaction with no differences between approaches except for more minor complications with immediate placement.
The use of immediate implant placement is increasingly including immediate restoration. De Bruyn et al (2012) provide a 3-year, prospective comparison of immediately restored single implants