Classifica

Immediate implants placed in infected and noninfected sites after atraumatic tooth extraction and placement with ultrasonic bone surgery Cornelio Blus et al. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Jan. Show details www.dentaltown.com/messageboard/useruploads/images/100910/100910_26_19_23_19_19_22_3961.jpg'); background-position: right 1.3rem center; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: 1rem;" target="_blank" > Abstract PubMed PMID Full text linksCite Abstract Background: Only a few reports deal with implants placed in infected postextraction sites. Purpose: Survival rates of a cohort of immediate implants cases placed in acute and chronically infected sites were compared with a cohort of noninfected ones while (1) tooth extraction and osteotomy sites were prepared with a piezosurgery device and (2) ultrasonication was applied to abate the bacterial charge at infected sites. Materials and methods: Eighty-six patients received 168 immediate implants distributed into three groups: noninfected (85), acute (36), and chronically (47) infected sites. Atraumatic extraction and implant osteotomy were performed with an ultrasonic surgery device without flap elevation. All sites received the same medication and surgical protocol; infected sites were ultrasonicated during 30 seconds at 72 W. Kaplan-Meyer survival rates were calculated at 1 year. Results: The 1-year survival rates of the noninfected, chronically, and acute infected groups were 98.8, 100, and 94.4%, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant. No implant was lost after loading. All teeth and roots could be extracted in one piece. Drilling at extraction sockets was uncomplicated, without skidding. Conclusions: Implant survival rates might be similar in infected and noninfected sites when infected sites receive standard medical and surgical treatment and are ultrasonicated. Atraumatic tooth/root extraction and implant placement can be reliably performed with piezoelectric surgery.