International Journal of Experimental Dental Science

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Resorbable vs Non-resorbable Barriers with Immediate Implantation after Functional Loading under Overdenture

Sahar Elkholy, Hussein Elcharkawi

Citation Information : Elkholy S, Elcharkawi H. Resorbable vs Non-resorbable Barriers with Immediate Implantation after Functional Loading under Overdenture. Int J Experiment Dent Sci 2017; 6 (2):74-79.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10029-1160

License: CC BY 3.0

Published Online: 00-12-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim was to evaluate the bone height and bone density of the peri-implant area with resorbable and non-resorbable barriers as guided tissue regeneration with immediate implants after functional loading under mandibular overdenture.

Materials and methods

Eight male patients (the age ranged between 45 and 60 years old), who had the upper jaw as fully edentulous and the lower jaw with only two remaining canines and indicated for extractions, were selected. Each patient received two immediate implants after extraction of remaining canines and were divided into two groups: Group I: The left side received non-resorbable barrier and group II: The right side received resorbable barrier. Radiographic evaluation was done for marginal bone height loss and bone density immediately after overdenture insertion and 6 months later.

Results

Mean marginal bone loss with non-resorbable barriers was 0.7 ± 0.16 mm and with resorbable barrier was 0.6 ± 0.1 mm, with nonsignificant difference between the two groups. There was significant increase in bone density with resorbable barrier after 6 months of functional loading, with significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusion

There was no difference in marginal bone height changes between resorbable and non-resorbable barriers with immediate implant under overdenture. However, after 6 months of functional loading, bone density increased with the use of resorbable barrier over non-resorbable barriers. Using of resorbable barrier with immediate implantation did not require second stage surgery for removing the barrier as with the non-resorbable one.

How to cite this article

Elkholy S, Elcharkawi H. Resorbable vs Non-resorbable Barriers with Immediate Implantation after Functional Loading under Overdenture. Int J Experiment Dent Sci 2017;6(2):74-79.


PDF Share
  1. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008 Jan;19(1):73-80.
  2. The ways and wherefores of immediate placement of implants into fresh extraction sites: A literature review. J Periodontal 1997 Oct;68(10):915-923.
  3. The role of orthodontic extrusive remolding in the enhancement of soft and hard tissue profiles prior to implant placement: a systemic approach to the management of extraction site defects. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1993 Aug;13(4):312-333.
  4. Immediate implants surgery: three-year retrospective evaluation of 50 consecutive cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8(4):388-399.
  5. The use of ePTFE barrier membrane for bone promotion around titanium implants placed into extraction sockets: a prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994 Jan-Feb;9(1):31-40.
  6. Implants placed in immediate extraction sites: a report of histologic and histometric analyses of human biopsies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998 May-Jun;13(2):333-341.
  7. Influence of initial implant integration of titanium implants. An experimental study in rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996 Jun;7(2):120-127.
  8. Immediate placement of implants into periodontally infected sites in dogs: a histomorphometric study of bone-implant contact. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003 May-Jun;18(3):391-398.
  9. Custom-made root analogue titanium implants placed into extraction socket. An experimental study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997 Oct;8(5):386-392.
  10. ; Klein, M.; Simons, A. Atlas of oral implantology. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999 xvi, p. 489.
  11. Healing-in of root analogue titanium implants placed in extraction sockets: an experimental study in the beagle dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992 Sep;3(3):136-144.
  12. Bone grafting and guided bone regeneration for immediate implants in humans. J Periodontol 1994 Sep;65(9):881-891.
  13. Placement of implants into fresh extraction sites using a resorbable collagen membrane: case reports. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1992 Apr;4(3):35-41.
  14. Root for surgery in the edentulous mandible: Stage I implant insertion. In: Contemporary implant dentistry. London: Mosby Co; 1999. p. 347.
  15. Immediate dental implant placement in sockets augmented with HTR synthetic bone. Implant Dent 2004 Mar;13(1):42-48.
  16. Using absorbable collagen membrane for guided tissue regeneration, guided bone regeneration and to treat gingival recession. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000 May;21(5):399-410.
  17. Membrane durability and tissue response of different bioresorbable barrier membranes: a histologic study in the rabbit calvarium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005 Nov-Dec;20(6):843-853.
  18. Implant-prosthodontic treatment for special care patients: a case series study. Int J Prosthodont 2005 Sep-Oct;18(5):383-389.
  19. Modulating the effects of diabetes on osseointegration with aminoquanidine and doxycycline. J Periodontol 2005 Apr;76(4):614-620.
  20. Osteoporosis: the effect on maxillary bone resorption and therapeutic possibilities by means of implant prostheses: a literature review and clinical considerations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003 Oct;23(5):447-457.
  21. Management of cronal gap effect with immediate dental implants. J Egypt Sci Soc Dent Implantol 2003;2948.
  22. Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2003 Sep;30(9):809-818.
  23. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003 Jun;14(3):251-262.
  24. Antibacterial effect of zinc phosphate mineralized guided bone regeneration membranes. Implant Dent 2007 Mar;16(1):89-100.
  25. Bone regeneration around titanium dental implants in dehisced defect sites: a clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992 Summer;7(2):233-245.
  26. A comparative study of effectiveness of ePTFE membrane with or without early exposure during healing period. Int J Periodont Res Dent 1994;14:167-180.
  27. Guided tissue regeneration around dental implants in immediate extraction sockets: comparison of e-PTFE and a new titanium membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994 Jun;14(3):243-253.
  28. Resorbable versus nonresorbable membranes in combination with Bio-Oss for guided bone regeneration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997 Nov-Dec;12(6):844-852.
  29. Evaluation of implants placed with barrier membranes. A retrospective follow-up study to five years. Clin Oral Implants 2002 Jun;13(3):274-280.
  30. Evaluation of porous collagen membrane in guided tissue regeneration. Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobile Biotechnol 1999 May;27(3):245-253.
  31. Guided bone regeneration using an absorbable membrane combined with a one-stage into a recent extraction site: a case report. Quintessence Int 2003 Apr;34(4):253-257.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.