Evaluating Implant Placement Techniques: Anatomical versus Conventional Immediate Placement in the Esthetic Zone
Background: Few studies have explored immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Given the limited clinical data, this study aimed to this study aimed to compare anatomical and conventional immediate implantation techniques in the esthetic area in terms of implant position and angulation.Meth...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Persian |
| Published: |
Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Mashhad Dental School |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jmds.mums.ac.ir/article_26185_89e841e0e2bd63fe2a3bbbc37c963dc9.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: Few studies have explored immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Given the limited clinical data, this study aimed to this study aimed to compare anatomical and conventional immediate implantation techniques in the esthetic area in terms of implant position and angulation.Methods and Materials: This study included healthy adults who had at least one hopeless tooth in the anterior maxilla and were candidates for immediate implantation. A total of 24 consecutive patients were enrolled and then randomly divided into two equal groups and received dental implants using either conventional and anatomical implantation techniques. Intraoral scanners were used to evaluate the position and angulation of installed implants. Implant position and angulation were categorized as optimal/suboptimal, mesial/distal and buccal/lingual. These parameters were compared between the two groups using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test. The tests were performed at a 5% error level and using SPSS version 27 software.Results: A total of 24 patients participated in this study. There were no statistically significant differences between the two methods in terms of implant position (mesiodistal: P = 0.414; buccolingual: P = 0.591) or angulation (mesiodistal: P = 0.230; buccolingual: P = 0.461).Conclusion: Immediate implant placement using either the anatomical or conventional technique showed no significant differences in terms of implant position or angulation. Hence, the choice of method should be based on the patient's clinical findings and the clinician’s preference. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1560-9286 2008-2347 |