Influence of Alveolar Bone Drilling and Anatomical Position on Integration

Overview

The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if alveolar bone drilling and anatomical position of an immediately placed dental implant has influence on the primary stability, osseointegration and function. It aims to answer these questions: * Does absence of alveolar drilling before implant placement give the same result as traditional osteotomy with apical drilling? * Is palatinal root position of implant as succesful as central position? Researchers will compare crestal bone levels and primary stability of the implant after insertion in the groups. Subjects will be assigned to groups, acoording to clinical situation. Study groups: 1. Dental implants will be placed in the extraction socket with an apical osteotomy. 2. Dental implants will be placed in the extraction socket without performing an osteotomy. 3. Dental implants will be placed in the centre of the extracted maxillary molar socket. 4. Dental implants will be placed into the palatal root socket of the extracted maxillary molar.

Tooth extraction and subsequent implantation will be performed under local anesthesia. After tooth extraction, an osteotomy is performed in the tooth socket to create a bed for the implant. The patients will be divided into groups based on the bone condition after tooth extraction. Participants in this study were scheduled for tooth extraction followed by immediate implant placement. One hour prior to the procedure, patients were administered 1 g of amoxicillin orally, which was continued at a dosage of twice daily for one week after the procedure. Teeth were extracted under local anesthesia using 4% articain with epi-nephrine 1:100000 (Ubistesin forte, 3M ESPE, USA), with an emphasis on minimizing trauma and avoiding flap elevation, employing root sectioning if necessary. Care was taken to preserve the marginal gingiva and papillae. Following extraction, the socket was cleaned and assessed. Osteotomies were created using the original drills in a sequence specified by the implant manufacturer. The implant was placed centrally in the me-sio-distal aspect and more towards the lingual/palatal side of the socket. The insertion torque was recorded with manual torque wrench. Anatomical or individual healing abutments were used after implant placement. Individual healing abutments were crafted chairside using original titanium temporary abutments and flowable composite, creating critical and subcritical contours. The composite was polished meticulously. All healing abutments were secured on the implants with 15 Ncm torque. Postoperative instructions were provided both verbally and, in a booklet, advising patients to rinse their mouths twice daily for 2 weeks with a commercially available mouth rinse containing 0.12% chlorhexidine di-gluconate. After 4 months, the osseointegration of implants was evaluated for presence or absence of following symptoms: pain, recurrent peri-implant infections, mobility on manual palpation and continuous peri-implant radiolucency. If those symptoms were absent, implant was deemed successfully integrated and implant schedulled for restoration. During prosthetic visit, open tray transfer was connected to the implant and open tray silicone impressions for final restorations were taken. Healing abutment put back to the implant. In the lab a screw-retained full-contour zirconia crowns with ultra-polished subgingival areas, using the polishing protocol were fabricated. At the delivery date, zirconia crown retained to the implant with fingers and torqued to 35N/cm using implant wrentch. The access holes were filled with Teflon tape, and while the top 1 mm was sealed with flowable composite . Individual oral hygiene instructions were provided both verbally and in booklet form. Scheduling of follow-up visits were carried out after 1 year of last dental visit.