File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleAnalysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement
 
AuthorsHuynhBa, G2
Pjetursson, BE3
Sanz, M1
Cecchinato, D5
Ferrus, J1
Lindhe, J6
Lang, NP4
 
Issue Date2010
 
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
CitationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2010, v. 21 n. 1, p. 37-42 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01870.x
 
AbstractBackground: Animal and human researches have shown that immediate implant placement into extraction sockets failed to prevent socket dimensional changes following tooth extraction. It has been suggested that a minimal width of 1-2 mm of buccal bone is necessary to maintain a stable vertical dimension of the alveolar crest. Aim: To determine the dimensions of the bony wall at extraction sites in the esthetic zone (anterior teeth and premolars in the maxilla) and relate it to immediate implant placement. Methods: As part of an ongoing prospective randomized-controlled multicenter clinical study on immediate implant placement, the width of the buccal and palatal bony walls was recorded at 93 extraction sites. Results: The mean width of the buccal and palatal bony walls was 1 and 1.2 mm, respectively (P<0.05). For the anterior sites (canine to canine), the mean width of the buccal bony wall was 0.8 mm. For the posterior (premolar) sites, it was 1.1 mm (P<0.05). In the anterior sites, 87% of the buccal bony walls had a width ≤1 mm and 3% of the walls were 2 mm wide. In the posterior sites, the corresponding values were 59% and 9%, respectively. Conclusions: If the criterion of a minimal buccal bone width of 2 mm to maintain a stable buccal bony wall is valid, only a limited number of sites in the anterior maxilla display such a clinical situation. The data suggested that in the majority of extraction sites in the anterior maxilla, thin (≤1 mm) buccal walls were present. This, in turn, means that in most clinical situations encountered, augmentation procedures are needed to achieve adequate bony contours around the implant. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
ISSN0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01870.x
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000272835900005
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorHuynhBa, G
 
dc.contributor.authorPjetursson, BE
 
dc.contributor.authorSanz, M
 
dc.contributor.authorCecchinato, D
 
dc.contributor.authorFerrus, J
 
dc.contributor.authorLindhe, J
 
dc.contributor.authorLang, NP
 
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T05:50:38Z
 
dc.date.available2010-09-06T05:50:38Z
 
dc.date.issued2010
 
dc.description.abstractBackground: Animal and human researches have shown that immediate implant placement into extraction sockets failed to prevent socket dimensional changes following tooth extraction. It has been suggested that a minimal width of 1-2 mm of buccal bone is necessary to maintain a stable vertical dimension of the alveolar crest. Aim: To determine the dimensions of the bony wall at extraction sites in the esthetic zone (anterior teeth and premolars in the maxilla) and relate it to immediate implant placement. Methods: As part of an ongoing prospective randomized-controlled multicenter clinical study on immediate implant placement, the width of the buccal and palatal bony walls was recorded at 93 extraction sites. Results: The mean width of the buccal and palatal bony walls was 1 and 1.2 mm, respectively (P<0.05). For the anterior sites (canine to canine), the mean width of the buccal bony wall was 0.8 mm. For the posterior (premolar) sites, it was 1.1 mm (P<0.05). In the anterior sites, 87% of the buccal bony walls had a width ≤1 mm and 3% of the walls were 2 mm wide. In the posterior sites, the corresponding values were 59% and 9%, respectively. Conclusions: If the criterion of a minimal buccal bone width of 2 mm to maintain a stable buccal bony wall is valid, only a limited number of sites in the anterior maxilla display such a clinical situation. The data suggested that in the majority of extraction sites in the anterior maxilla, thin (≤1 mm) buccal walls were present. This, in turn, means that in most clinical situations encountered, augmentation procedures are needed to achieve adequate bony contours around the implant. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2010, v. 21 n. 1, p. 37-42 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01870.x
 
dc.identifier.citeulike6422455
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01870.x
 
dc.identifier.epage42
 
dc.identifier.hkuros169093
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000272835900005
 
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
dc.identifier.issue1
 
dc.identifier.openurl
 
dc.identifier.pmid20070745
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-72949085306
 
dc.identifier.spage37
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/66941
 
dc.identifier.volume21
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.subject.meshAdult
 
dc.subject.meshAged
 
dc.subject.meshAged, 80 and over
 
dc.subject.meshAlveolar Process - anatomy & histology - surgery
 
dc.subject.meshDental Implantation, Endosseous - methods
 
dc.subject.meshDental Implants, Single-Tooth
 
dc.subject.meshFemale
 
dc.subject.meshHumans
 
dc.subject.meshMale
 
dc.subject.meshMaxilla - anatomy & histology - surgery
 
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged
 
dc.subject.meshProspective Studies
 
dc.subject.meshTooth Socket - anatomy & histology - surgery
 
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcome
 
dc.titleAnalysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>HuynhBa, G</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Pjetursson, BE</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Sanz, M</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Cecchinato, D</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Ferrus, J</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lindhe, J</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lang, NP</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2010-09-06T05:50:38Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2010-09-06T05:50:38Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2010</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2010, v. 21 n. 1, p. 37-42</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0905-7161</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/66941</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>Background: Animal and human researches have shown that immediate implant placement into extraction sockets failed to prevent socket dimensional changes following tooth extraction. It has been suggested that a minimal width of 1-2 mm of buccal bone is necessary to maintain a stable vertical dimension of the alveolar crest. Aim: To determine the dimensions of the bony wall at extraction sites in the esthetic zone (anterior teeth and premolars in the maxilla) and relate it to immediate implant placement. Methods: As part of an ongoing prospective randomized-controlled multicenter clinical study on immediate implant placement, the width of the buccal and palatal bony walls was recorded at 93 extraction sites. Results: The mean width of the buccal and palatal bony walls was 1 and 1.2 mm, respectively (P&lt;0.05). For the anterior sites (canine to canine), the mean width of the buccal bony wall was 0.8 mm. For the posterior (premolar) sites, it was 1.1 mm (P&lt;0.05). In the anterior sites, 87% of the buccal bony walls had a width &#8804;1 mm and 3% of the walls were 2 mm wide. In the posterior sites, the corresponding values were 59% and 9%, respectively. Conclusions: If the criterion of a minimal buccal bone width of 2 mm to maintain a stable buccal bony wall is valid, only a limited number of sites in the anterior maxilla display such a clinical situation. The data suggested that in the majority of extraction sites in the anterior maxilla, thin (&#8804;1 mm) buccal walls were present. This, in turn, means that in most clinical situations encountered, augmentation procedures are needed to achieve adequate bony contours around the implant. &#169; 2009 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Clinical Oral Implants Research</relation.ispartof>
<subject.mesh>Adult</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Aged</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Aged, 80 and over</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Alveolar Process - anatomy &amp; histology - surgery</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Implants, Single-Tooth</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Female</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Humans</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Male</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Maxilla - anatomy &amp; histology - surgery</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Middle Aged</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Prospective Studies</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Tooth Socket - anatomy &amp; histology - surgery</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Treatment Outcome</subject.mesh>
<title>Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement</title>
<type>Article</type>
<identifier.openurl>http://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&amp;issn=0905-7161&amp;volume=21&amp;spage=37&amp;epage=42&amp;date=2010&amp;atitle=Analysis+of+the+socket+bone+wall+dimensions+in+the+upper+maxilla+in+relation+to+immediate+implant+placement</identifier.openurl>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01870.x</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>20070745</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-72949085306</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>169093</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-72949085306&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>21</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>1</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>37</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>42</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000272835900005</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
<identifier.citeulike>6422455</identifier.citeulike>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  2. University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
  3. University of Iceland
  4. Prince Philip Dental Hospital
  5. Institute Franci
  6. Sahlgrenska Academy