Abstract

Objective: The aim of this presented study was to evaluate the survival and success rates implants with immediate and conventional placement. The second aim of this study was to evaluate and compared the crestal bone and gingival margin level around the implants in each groups. Materials and methods: 30 immediate implants in 26 patients (test group) and 34 conventional implants in 26 patients (control group) were evaluated. All implants at least 12 months follow-up. The change in the level of crestal bone was measured on standardized digital panaromic radiographt and gingival margin recession values were evaluated in clinically, third months, and twelfth months for each patient. The measurements were statistically analyzed. Results: Sixty-four implants healed without complication. Implants and restorations had a 100% survival rate during the study. Mean marginal bone resorption was calculated at 0.7 ± 0.5 mm for test group and 0.6 ± 0.6 for control group after at least 1 year in function. Both initially and after 12 months, gingival recession values were found similar for each group (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated that the implant may be placed 2 mm below the crestal bone level to compensate the crestal bone loss. Immediat implant placement techniques are effective procedures as conventional implant placement.

Authors and Affiliations