J. Edward, A. Samson, J. George
2017
Citations
0
Influential Citations
0
Citations
Journal
Journal name not available for this finding
Abstract
Since the 1980s, bone-anchored dental implants have become a well-established and predictable treatment for restoring missing teeth. The implant placement protocol was to wait following tooth extraction to allow adequate bone maturation to support the implant. Rationale behind this was to reduce the portability of infection, provide a more stable base for implant, and increase the amount of keratinized gingiva. Today, many researchers and clinicians are focusing on ways to achieve these successful results while simplifying and shortening the treatment process.1 The advantage is that it allows patients to regain function and natural-looking teeth more quickly, and also this helps to maintain the soft and hard tissue architecture. In the 1980s, the University of Tubingen advocated the procedure as the technique of choice for Tubingen and Munchen ceramic implants.2 In the classification of implants according to timing of placement given by Wilson,3,4 the terms immediate, recent, delayed, and mature are used to describe the timing of implant placement in relation to soft tissue healing and predictability of guided bone regeneration procedures. Garber and Belser5 have described three scenarios for the timing of implant placement following extraction. Immediate placement occurs at the time of tooth extraction, staged placement occurs at least 8 weeks following extraction, and delayed placement is performed 3 months or more following extraction. Gomez-Roman et al6 defined immediate implants as occurring between 0 and 7 days after tooth extraction. Zitzman et al7 considered implant placement as delayed when it occurred between 6 weeks and 6 months after extraction. Mayfield,8 in his classification given in 1999, used the terms immediate, delayed, and late to describe time intervals of 0 week, 6 to 10 weeks, and 6 months or more after extraction respectively. As the debate in timing of implant placement increased, the following new classification based on morphologic, dimensional, and histologic changes that 1Professor and Head, 2,3Assistant Professor, 4Consultant 1,4Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Azeezia College of Dental Sciences and Research, Kollam, Kerala, India 2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College, Alappuzha, Kerala, India 3Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Ernakulam, Kerala, India