Evaluation of the Clinical Success of Immediate Loading Implant in the Aesthetic Zone: An In Vivo Study

Mohammad Jalaluddin; Sandeep Subhash Arora; Thomas Varghese; Achuthan Nair; Faisal M A Gaffoor; Deesha Kumari

doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_870_21

Evaluation of the Clinical Success of Immediate Loading Implant in the Aesthetic Zone: An In Vivo Study

J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022 Jul;14(Suppl 1):S581-S584. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_870_21. Epub 2022 Jul 13.

Authors

Mohammad Jalaluddin¹, Sandeep Subhash Arora², Thomas Varghese³, Achuthan Nair⁴, Faisal M A Gaffoor⁵, Deesha Kumari⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Periodontics and Oral Implantology, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
² Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Kalburgi, Karnataka, India.
³ Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.
⁴ Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Noorul Islam College of Dental sciences, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
⁵ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Noorul Islam College of Dental Sciences, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
⁶ Department of Public Health Dentistry, AB Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences (ABSMIDS), Nitte (Deemed to be University), Mangalore, Karnataka, India.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the current study was to assess the clinical success of immediate loading implant in the esthetic zone.

Materials and methods: 20 patients with 20 teeth to get replaced were selected for the study. All patients underwent a pre-surgical preparation followed by draping. Following stringent asepsis, necessary precaution was taken to not to injure the socket wall while removal of tooth. After removal, socket was thoroughly cleaned and curetted with saline and betadine. Using physiodispenser and drills, socket was properly prepared for implant insertion taking care of irrigation with saline to avoid heating of socket while drilling. Implants were then placed with initial stability with hand motion followed by complete insertion with hand ratchet. Black silk sutures were used to close the socket. Patients underwent the first control one week after surgery. They were recalled at the 1^st, 3^rd and 6^th months to evaluate the following parameters to assess the success of immediate implant placement: mobility, soft tissue conditions (gingival index and probing pocket depth (PPD)), and a graded scale ranging from "very satisfied" to "very unsatisfied" were employed to subjectively evaluate patient contentedness.

Results: During the 1^st and 3^rd months, 100% mobility was absent. But on the 6^th month, the implant of 3 patients (15%) was mobile. The maximum gingival index score was noted in the 1^st month (1.02 ± 0.01) and reduced more in the 3^rd month (0.74 ± 0.08). The probing depth was more in the 1^st month (3.88 ± 0.10) and it was reduced in the 3^rd month (3.02 ± 0.12). Significant difference was not found between different times of intervals. 14 patients were very satisfied, 5 patients were fairly satisfied, and 1 was fairly unsatisfied.

Conclusion: The current study concluded that immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone has a better success rate with good patient acceptance.

Keywords: Aesthetic zone; clinical success extraction sockets; immediate implant.