1

CLINICAL STUDY OF NATURACTIS DENTAL IMPLANTS IN POST-

EXTRACTION DENTAL PROCEDURES.

Authors: Antonio Bascones-Martinez,* Jorge Ripollés-de Ramón**, Rafael Gómez-

Font ***, Cristina Bascones-Ilundáin****,Jaime Bascones-Ilundáin*****

*Full Professor, Head of Buccofacial Medicine and Surgery Department, School of

Dentistry, Madrid Complutense University, Spain.

** Doctor in Dentistry. Buccofacial Medicine and Surgery Department, School of

Dentistry, Madrid Complutense University, Spain.

*** Professor Odontology, Buccofacial Medicine and Surgery Department, School of

Dentistry, Madrid Complutense University, Spain.

**** Professor, Odontology, Buccofacial Medicine and Surgery Department, School

of Dentistry, Madrid Complutense University, Spain.

***** Professor, Odontology,Conservative Department, School of Dentistry, Madrid

Complutense University, Spain.

Corresponding author:

Prof. Antonio Bascones-Martinez

antbasco@odon.ucm.es

Facultad de Odontología

Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n

Madrid 28040, Spain

2

INTRODUCTION

Immediate post-extraction implant placement has been developed over the past

20 yrs (1-8) with the aim of reducing implant treatment time, avoiding the resorption

of alveolar structures and maintaining the greatest possible integrity of hard and soft

tissue in the alveolar process, which tends to decrease in volume post-extraction. This

approach is closely related to the application of tissue regeneration techniques to

manage gaps between the alveolar socket and implant, thereby avoiding the migration

to these areas of epithelial cells and their potential interference with osseointegration

(9-14). Among the limitations and indications of immediate implantation, it requires a

minimal remnant bone volume for the vestibular and palatal walls of the socket and

adequate healthy bone apical to the implant site (15,16).

Numerous studies have demonstrated the predictability and safety of post-

extraction implant placement; it achieves success rates similar to those obtained with a

deferred surgical approach, and the substantially reduced treatment time undoubtedly

improves patient satisfaction (17,18). However, this technique is not free of

complications, especially when incorrectly applied, and it should be performed in a

meticulous and precise manner. The most common cause of failure is alveolar

infection, which leads to implant loss in the majority of cases.

HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVES

The macro- and micro-mechanical morphology and design of Naturactis

implants favor their positioning and stabilization within the tooth socket, especially in

post-extraction procedures. The simplified surgical protocol facilitates the implant

insertion and minimizes the damage to periodontal tissues.

The objectives of this study were: to evaluate the degree of primary stability after

implant placement; to evaluate the success rates of Naturactis implants at 6, 12, and 18

months post-insertion; to analyze the peri-implant periodontal tissue; to assess the peri-

implant appearance; and to evaluate the degree of satisfaction of the clinicians with the

management of the implant and the surgical protocol.

3

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Volunteers for this prospective longitudinal clinical study were recruited from among

the patients of private clinics in Madrid.

Study inclusion criteria were: age between 18-65 yrs; good general health

status; fulfillment of clinical criteria for tooth extraction (e.g., periodontal disease, root

fracture, external or internal root resorption, or endodontic treatment failure) in the

interval 15-25, 35-45, i.e., in upper or lower arch in positions between the premolars;

no signs of dental-periodontal infection, no presence of granuloma or fistula in the

socket, and the fulfillment of criteria for immediate post-extraction implantation,

including ≥ 1 mm vestibular or palatine bone in the alveolar process; and a minimum

of 3-5 mm healthy bone apical to the extracted tooth (i.e., implant placement area).

Study exclusion criteria were: treatment with > 3 drugs or with drugs that can

affect bone regulation metabolism (bisphosphonates) or alter coagulation or vit K

parameters; any type of allergy; pregnancy or breastfeeding; consumption of ≥ 10

cigarettes/day; presence of dyscrasia syndrome or psychiatric disorder; and alcohol

intake in the previous 7 days. After application of the above criteria, a study sample of

33 patients requiring a total of 60 implants was enrolled in the study. After the

implantation, a further criterion for exclusion from the analysis was an initial torque

value below 35Nm (see below) in cases with a gap between implant and socket space >

1 mm. No such cases were observed.

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the study was

approved by the research ethics committee of the San Carlos Hospital in Madrid on

July 11 2012 (code CP CI 12/268E).

Methodology and surgical technique

A panoramic radiograph was taken of each patient enrolled in the study, and a block of

Godiva modeling wax was prepared (engraved with the patient’s initials) (Fig. 1).

4

Next, a periapical radiograph was taken with the prepared wax block in place. Before

the surgery, a baseline photograph was taken (Fig. 1).

The surgical technique was designed to be as atraumatic as possible and to maximize

the preservation of the periodontal bone structure. Alveolar curettage was conducted in

order to eliminate all pathological material. Immediately after the extraction, a

Naturactis dental implant (internal connection) was placed, following the drilling

sequence recommended by the manufacturer (Euroteknika Groupe Sallanches, France).

All implants were placed with a healing screw at the minimum height required for its

exposure, permitting subsequent measurements with the Osstell system (Osstell ISQ

Instrument, Linthicum, MD).

After the implant placement, the insertion torque was measured, and the implant

stability was determined in ISQ values using the Osstell system (Fig. 2). In addition, a

parallel periapical radiograph was taken, using the aforementioned wax block to ensure

the same projection and thereby allow crestal bone changes to be accurately followed

over time (Fig. 3). Finally, a photograph was taken of the same image as in the baseline

photograph but with the implant and healing screw in place (Figure 4).

Patients were treated with 500/125 mg amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (1 tablet every 8 h)

for 7 days post-surgery and with anti-inflammatory analgesics during the first 24-48 h;

the topical application of 0.20% chlorhexidine for 15 days was recommended.

Sutures were removed at 7 days. A photograph was taken (Fig. 5), and the implant

stability was measured with the Osstell system and periapical radiographs were taken

at this follow-up and again at 2, 4, and 6 months.

RESULTS

In this study, 60 Naturactis implants were placed in 33 patients (12 males and

21 females) (Table 1). More than 50% of the patients were older than 54 yrs; the most

prevalent age group was the 30-42 yr age group (Table 2). Out of the 60 implants, 80%

were placed in maxilla and 20% in mandible (Table 3); 7% of the patients were

smokers (< 10 cigarettes/day [heavier smokers were excluded]) (Table 4). Four of the

implants failed and were removed: three of these were immediate or early failures (<30

5

days), and the fourth failed at 70 days (Table 5); three of the failures were in maxilla

and the other in mandible, All four implants were reinserted within three months of the

failure and were successfully loaded at six months.

The most frequent implant diameter was 4 mm (regular platform) (>50%),

followed by 3 mm (35%), and 5 mm (wide platform) (Table 6). The insertion torque

value of the implants was >35 Nm in all cases, with initial Osstell ISQ values that

ranged between 64 and 92. There was a trend to a small reduction in ISQ values at 2

months post-loading, which was followed by an increase at 4 months; no significant

difference was found between ISQ results at 4 and 6 months. No implant failure was

observed at 12 months post-loading, when all patients were discharged from treatment.

DISCUSSION

Besides the shorter duration of the treatment, immediate post-extraction implant

placement reduces the number of surgical acts and the exposure of the patients to drugs

1,5,19-21. The results obtained in the present study confirm that the success rates obtained

with immediate implantation are similar to those achieved with deferred techniques (1-

2,23-25).

As reported by other authors, immediate implantation requires a meticulous

surgical procedure and the application of rigorous clinical criteria, especially in regard

to the primary stability, the absence of active infection, and the availability of adequate

peri-implant bone. This technique is not free of complications, most frequently

postoperative infection, which can lead to implant loss (3-7). Most authors consider

that the main clinical requirement for success in immediate implantation is a high

implant insertion torque, considering torque values > 35 Nm insertion and Osstell ISQ

values > 65 to be adequate for a successful outcome (12, 15-17).

Most authors recommend avoiding the elevation of a mucoperiosteal flap in the

implant placement area when possible, because it increases resorption of the

underlying bone by altering its stability and nutrition. Blanco et al (26) observed that

vestibular plate resorption was lower with flapless surgery (0.8 mm) than with surgery

using a flap (1.3 mm). Hence, mucoperiosteal detachment may impair socket modeling

6

post-extraction by producing an increase in osteoclast resorption. We highlight the

importance of the vestibular wall width in immediate post-extraction implant

placement. Thus, Chen et al (17,18) reported that the resorption was up to 3-fold

greater in sockets with thinner walls (<0.5 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate post-extraction implantation is not free of drawbacks but has proven

to be an effective and safe option in the majority of clinical situations that require tooth

extraction. Naturactis implants demonstrate a high level of primary stability (initial

Osstell values >63 ISQ), which is essential for immediate implantation and the key to a

successful outcome.

No immediate or short-term complications were observed in any case, except

for the early loss of four implants due to socket bed infection. No implants failed after

their prosthetic loading.

Radiological studies verified the maintenance and integrity of the crestal bone

at 12 months, in part attributable to the absence of mucoperiosteal detachment during

the surgery.

The results at 6 months were satisfactory with regard to the implant insertion,

stability, and surgical protocol management for implant placement. Studies are

warranted with larger samples to compare Naturactis implants with other implant

systems.

7

ABSTRACT

Background: The reported success rate of immediate post-extraction implantation

ranges between 92.7% and 98%. Its main advantage is the shorter treatment time

before prosthetic loading, and it also avoids a second surgery and improves the healing

process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of immediate

implantation using a specific type of implant.

Material and Methods: Sixty Naturactis implants (Euroteknika) were placed

immediately after dental extraction in 33 eligible patients. Data were gathered on the

age, gender, and toxic habits of patients and on the insertion torque, periodontal status,

implant stability (Osstell system), and crestal bone resorption (radiological study). All

patients were followed up for 12 months. Mucoperiosteal flaps were avoided in all

cases.

Results: All implants achieved an insertion torque > 35NM and an initial stability >63

ISQ (Osstell system). Four of the implants failed within 1 month. No crestal bone loss

was observed in the first 6 months post-implantation. Healing was uneventful and there

were no postoperative complications.

Key words: Dental implants, immediate dental implants, immediate loading.

8

REFERENCES

1.-Peñarrocha M, Sanchís JM. Implante inmediato a la extracción. In: Peñarrocha M, ed.

Implantología Oral. Barcelona: Ars Médica 2001. p. 85-93. 2.SchulteW. TheintraosseousAlO

(Frialit)Tübingenimplant.Developmental

2.-Bascones A, Frías MC, Bascones C. Implantes postextracción. JANO 2001; 3:12-7. !4.

Luengo F, de Santiago J. El implante inmediato a la extracción. En: Herrero M, Herrero F, eds.

Atlas de procedimientos clínicos en implantología oral. Ma- drid: Trp Editores 1995. p. 125-

40.

3.-Nail GA, Stein S, Korhi M, Waite DE. Evaluation of endosseous implants placed in fresh

extraction sites in dogs (abstract 1906). J Dent Res 1990;69:347. 6. Karabuda C, Sandalli P,

Yalcin S, Steflick D, Parr G. Histologic and histomorphometric comparison of immediately

placed hydroxyapatite-coated and titanium plasma-sprayed implants. A pilot study in dogs. Int

J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:510-5.

4.-Wilson TG, Schenk R, Buser D, Cochran D. Implant placed in immediate extractions sites.

A report of histologic and histometric analyses of human biopsies. Int J Oral Maxillofac

Implants 1998;13:333-41. !8. Cornelini R, Scarano A, Covani U, Petrone G, Piattelli A.

Immediate one- stage postextraction implant: A human clinical and histologic case report. Int J

Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:432-7.

5.-Block MA, Kent JN. Placement of endosseous implants into tooth extraction sites. J Oral

Maxillofac Surg 1991;49:1269-76.

6.-Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindstrom J. (1981) Osseointegrated

titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long- lasting, direct bone-to-implant

anchorage in man. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 52, 155- 170.

7.-Amler MH. (1969) The time sequence of tissue regeneration in human extraction

wounds. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Oral

Endodontology 27, 309- 318.

8.-Anneroth G, Hedstrom KG, Kjellman O, Kondell PA, Nordenram A. (1985)

Endosseous titanium implants in extraction sockets. An experimental study in

9

monkeys. International Journal of Oral Surgery 14, 50-54.

9.-Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. (1997) Biologic

width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival

junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible.

Journal of Periodontology 68, 186-198.

10.-Covani U, Cornelini R, Barone A. (2003) Bucco- lingual bone remodeling around

implants placed into immediate extraction sockets: a case series. Journal of

Periodontology 74, 268- 273.

11.-Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Buser D, Lindhe J. (2003b) The jumping distance

revisited: An experimental study in the dog. Clinical Oral Implant Research 14, 35-42.

12.-Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. (2004) Hard-tissue alterations following

immediate implant placement in extraction sites.Journal of Clinical Periodontology 31,

820-828.

13.-Botticelli D, Persson LG, Lindhe J, Berglundh T. (2006) Bone tissue formation

adjacent to implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs.

Clinical Oral Implant Research 17, 351-358.

14.-Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Buser D, Lindhe J. (2003a) Appositional bone

formation in marginal defects at implants. Clinical Oral Implant Research 14, 1-9.

15.-Cardaropoli D, Debernardi C, Cardaropoli G. (2007) Immediate placement of

implant into impacted maxillary canine extraction socket. Int The International Journal

of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 27, 71-77.

16.- Cardaropoli G, Wennstrom JL, Lekholm U. (2003) Peri-implant bone alterations

in relation to inter-unit distances. A 3-year retrospective study. Clinical Oral Implant

Research 14, 430- 436.

17.-Chen ST, Darby IB, Reynolds EC. (2007) A prospective clinical study of non-

submerged immediate implants: clinical outcomes and esthetic results. Clinical Oral

10

Implant Research 18, 552-562.

18.-Chen ST, Wilson TG Jr, Hammerle CH. (2004) Immediate or early placement of

implants following tooth extraction: review of biologic basis, clinical procedures, and

outcomes. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 19 Suppl, 12-25.

19.-Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. (2005) Ridge alterations

following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the

dog.Journal of Clinical Periodontologyy 32, 645-652.

20.-Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. (2006a) Tissue modeling

following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. Clinical Oral Implant

Research 17, 615-624.

21.-Araujo MG, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. (2006b) Modeling of the buccal and lingual

bone walls of fresh extraction sites following implant installation. Clinical Oral

Implant Research 17, 606-614.

22.- Boyne PJ. (1966) Osseous repair of the postextraction alveolus in man. Oral

Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Oral Endodontology 21,

805-813.

23.-Carmagnola D, Adriaens P, Berglundh T. (2003) Healing of human extraction

sockets filled with Bio-Oss. Clinical Oral Implant Research 14, 137-143.

24.-Dies F, Etienne D, Abboud NB, Ouhayoun JP. (1996) Bone regeneration in

extraction sites after immediate placement of an e-PTFE membrane with or without a

biomaterial. A report on 12 consecutive cases. Clinical Oral Implant Research 7, 277-

285.

25.- Cornelini R, Scarano A, Covani U, Petrone G, Piattelli A. Immediate one- stage

postextraction implant: A human clinical and histologic case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac

Implants 2000;15:432-7.

26.- Blanco J, Nunez V, Aracil L, Munoz F , Ramos I. (2008) Ridge alterations

11

following immediate implant placement in the dog: flap versus flapless surgery.

Journal of Clinical Periodontology 35, 640-648.

12

Figure 1.- Preparation of wax block

13

Figure 2.- Stability measurement with Osstell and smartpeg

14

Figure 3. Periapical X-ray with the wax block

15

Figure 4. Post-extraction Naturactis implant with healing screw

16

Figure 5.- Seven days post-implantation

17

Table 1. Population distribution by sex

18

Table 2. Population distribution by age group.

19

Table 3. Distribution of the implant placement arch.

20

Table 4. Toxic habits. Smokers (<10 cigs/day).

21

Table 5. Implant osseointegration rate at 8 months.

22

Table 6. Diameter of implants used.