Objectives To compare the survival of immediate implants placed in postextraction infected and non-infected sites, restored with cemented crowns. Methods Thirty-six implants were immediately placed in non-infected sockets (control group (CG), n = 18), and in infected alveoli (test group (TG), n = 18) that had been debrided, curetted, cleaned with 90% hydrogen peroxide, irradiated with yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser, and irrigated with a sterile solution. Guided bone regeneration was performed under antibiotic coverture. All study patients had both a CG and a TG site. The implant osteotomy sites were extended 3-4 mm beyond the apical extent of the sockets to achieve primary stability for the implants. The prosthetic phase occurred 4.5 months after surgery. Success criteria were accepted as the presence of implant stability, absence of a radiolucent zone around the implants, absence of mucosal suppuration, and lack of pain. Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline, and at 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up. Results All of the implants were osseointegrated 3 months after surgery. The 3-year survival rate was 94.44% for TG, and 100% for CG. The clinical and radiographic variables tested yielded no significant differences among groups at 36 months. Conclusions Under the tested conditions, immediate implant placement can be considered a predictable treatment option for the restoration of fresh postextraction infected sockets. Clinical significance Immediate implants may be indicated for replacing teeth lost due to chronic periapical lesions with endodontic failure history when appropriate preoperative procedures are taken to clean and decontaminate the surgical sites. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Montoya-Salazar, V., Castillo-Oyagüe, R., Torres-Sánchez, C., Lynch, C. D., Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. L., & Torres-Lagares, D. (2014). Outcome of single immediate implants placed in post-extraction infected and non-infected sites, restored with cemented crowns: A 3-year prospective study. Journal of Dentistry, 42(6), 645–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.03.008