الفهرس 
Review of LiteratureOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 176 |  |  |
| | | from | 176 | | |
Abstract
Summary
After extraction of the tooth, multiple physiologic changes to the hard and soft tissue of the alveolar ridge take place leading to a reduction in both vertical and horizontal dimensions. The average of this reduction reaches 50% in the horizontal dimension and 11-22% in the vertical dimension. This reduction interferes with the correct positioning of dental implants, especially in the esthetic zone.
The present study was carried out to evaluate the use of collagen cone blended with gentamicin in chronically infected sockets and its effect on the success of the dental implant.
The study aimed to compare the immediate placement of the implant following tooth extraction versus delayed placement of the implant four months after the treatment of the extraction socket with collagen cone impregnated with gentamicin in case of chronic infection. This comparison was done clinically and radiographically.
Twenty patients were selected who required the extraction of non-restorable tooth with chronic infection and requested implant restoration. Two treatment modalities were carried out; the first one (ten patients) was extraction and placement of the implant immediately while the second (ten patients) was extraction and alveolar ridge preservation using collagen cone blended with gentamicin then implant placement 4 months later. Radiographic evaluations were performed by CBCT to measure the changes in the alveolar ridge dimensions before extraction and four months after implant placement and also ISQ value was obtained by osstell to evaluate implant stability at two subsequent periods implant insertion (primary stability) and four months later (secondary stability).
Implant placement after socket preservation by parasorb cone genta in case of chronically infected socket showed better results in terms of dimensional change after extraction in both height (-1.17) and width (-4.33) than immediate implant placement (-6.72 in height and -11.88 in width). Moreover, in terms of implant stability at both implant insertion (66.25±1.28) and loading (76.25±2.12) were better than immediate implant placement (59.75±5.37 for primary and 67.5±5.01 for secondary).