Abstract
BackgroundTo evaluated the marginal bone loss around dental implants by two insertion methods.MethodsEligible patients were divided into two groups; manual and mechanized groups. Peri-apical x-ray using a customized device to standardize the radiographs designed and used to take three periodical radiographs; after surgery, three months, and six months follow up. An independent t-test was used to compare the two groups regarding the average level of marginal bone loss (p < 0.05).ResultsAfter excluding dropouts, a total of 273 patients (120 males and 153 females, aged between 25 and 67 years old) were included in the study. The average marginal bone loss in the manual insertion method was 0.44 ± 0.84 mm, and 0.59 ± 0.20 mm, and for the mechanized method was 0.51 ± 0.20 mm and 0.67 ± 0.19 mm after three and six months, respectively. There was a significant difference in marginal bone loss after six months between the two groups(p < 0.001). However, no differences were observed after three months (p = 0.24).ConclusionsUnder the condition of this study, both techniques were safe and resulted in an acceptable amount of bone resorption; however, in the manual method, the less marginal bone loss occurred after six months.
Highlights
To evaluated the marginal bone loss around dental implants by two insertion methods
The implant insertion was manual in 167 patients (200 units) and mechanized in 106 patients (200 units)
The results of this study demonstrated no significant difference between the manual and mechanized implant insertion techniques concerning the level of bone resorption in the mesial and distal surfaces of the implants after 3 months
Summary
To evaluated the marginal bone loss around dental implants by two insertion methods. Osseo-integrated dental implants have demonstrated long-time success in the reconstruction of fully and partially edentulous patients [1]. A dental implant was considered the first treatment choice for prosthetic rehabilitation [2]. A dental implant is a prosthetic or alloplastic material, which is embedded in the bone, to maintain retention and support for fixed or removable dental prosthetics. The treatment outcome depends on the trabecular and medullary bone structures and the level of bone resorption in the dental socket [3]. Various implant systems and prosthetics have been available for dentists and laboratory technicians during recent decades [4]. The variety of surgical methods in different systems has relatively disoriented the dentists to system selection.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
