الفهرس 
Immediate implant placement with immediate provisionalization in the maxillary esthetic zone using mixture of allograft and xenograft vs xenografts to augment the jumping gap : A Randomized Clinical Trial
Table of ContentsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 96 |  |  |
| | | from | 96 | | |
Abstract
This study was performed to evaluate marginal bone loss using mixture allograft and xenograft versus xenograft in immediate implant placement with temporization in esthetic area. Twenty implants were conducted in twenty fresh extraction sockets in 17 patients with one or more hopeless teeth indicated for extraction in the region of maxillary anterior teeth. All patients were systemically free and with reasonable oral hygiene. Extraction sockets were randomly distributed into two groups. The first study group received immediate post-extraction implants with mixture allograft with xenograft to fill the peri-implant bony defect (jumping gap) While control group received immediate post-extraction implants with bovine xenograft to fill the peri-implant bony defect. Preoperative measures were performed including clinical and radiographic assessment to ensure proper case selection. A traumatic protocol was followed to deliver the tooth outside the socket. The implants were placed simultaneously in fresh extraction sockets after proper irrigation. The patients of study group received mixture allograft with xenograft to fill the marginal gap while control group received bovine xenograft. The bovine xenograft and mixture allograft with xenograft were mixed with saline and were introduced inside the gap using a graft carrier and condensers. The graft was packed loosely to allow for pooling of blood between the graft particles. A provisional crown were used with an emergency profile to support the coronal tissues. All provisional crowns were made out of occlusion and patients were instructed not to occlude on them and to use for esthetic appearance only. A cone beam CT was taken immediately post-operative and 6 months postoperatively to measure the amount of marginal bone loss in each group and then the percentage of bone loss in each group was compared to the other group