Effect Of Two Methods Of Wound Closure On Crestal bone And Soft Tissue Changes Following Immediate Implant Placement. A Clinico-Radiological Study
• Immediate implant placement • Wound closure • Crestal bone loss • Soft tissue healing • Dental implants • Primary closure
AuthorsAbstractImmediate implant placement has become a predictable treatment modality that helps preserve alveolar bone, reduce treatment time, and improve patient satisfaction following tooth extraction. However, the method of wound closure may influence peri-implant healing, crestal bone stability, and soft tissue outcomes. The present clinico-radiological study aims to evaluate and compare the effect of two methods of wound closure on crestal bone levels and peri-implant soft tissue changes following immediate implant placement. Patients requiring immediate implant placement after tooth extraction will be allocated into two groups based on the wound closure technique employed. Clinical parameters, including peri-implant soft tissue healing, gingival recession, probing depth, and plaque and bleeding indices, will be assessed at predetermined intervals. Radiographic evaluation will be performed using standardized intraoral radiographs or cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to measure changes in crestal bone levels immediately after implant placement and during follow-up. Statistical analysis will be performed to compare the outcomes between the two groups and determine the significance of differences observed. The findings of this study are expected to provide evidence regarding the influence of different wound closure techniques on peri-implant tissue stability and contribute to optimizing surgical protocols for immediate implant therapy. Improved understanding of wound closure methods may enhance both functional and esthetic outcomes while promoting long-term implant success.
IntroductionThe replacement of lost dental structure in the anterior maxilla site has always been a challenge to the dentist due to esthetic, functional, and physiological importance1-4. A review of the available human extraction studies have shown an average loss of 3.7mm or 45% of the buccolingual ridge dimensions 5. The ridge height was found to be less affected post extraction, as an average of only 1.6mm was considered to be lost when extraction was followed by dental implants. The original branemark protocol stated that implants be placed in two stages (branemark et al, 1977). It was believed that after implant placement, it was imperative that they be covered by the mucosa to avoid the epithelial downgrowth between the implant and bone. An extended healing period of three months and six months were postulated as ideal for the mandible and maxilla respectively (adell et al, 1981). Patients were often not allowed to wear a temporary removal prosthesis during the first couple of weeks after the surgery to minimize the risk on implant integration caused due to overloading & micromovement. Implant exposure were done during a second surgery and further prothesis fabrication was done. The protocol meant a treatment duration of 4-5 months in the mandible and 8-9 months •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ejprd.org- Published by Riset Publishing Services LLC.
EJPRD
Copyright © 2026 by Riset Publishing Services LLC