TY - JOUR
T1 - Marginal Bone Level Evaluation after Functional Loading Around Two Different Dental Implant Designs
AU - Ho, Ko Ning
AU - Salamanca, Eisner
AU - Lin, Hsi Kuai
AU - Lee, Sheng Yang
AU - Chang, Wei Jen
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Ko-Ning Ho et al.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Purpose. To investigate peri-implant alveolar bone changes using periapical radiographs before and after prosthetic delivery in submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants. Methods. Digital periapical films of 60 ITI Straumann nonsubmerged dental implants and 60 Xive Dentsply submerged dental implants were taken before, immediately after, and 12 and 24 weeks after the prosthetic restoration was delivered. Results. The 60-nonsubmerged dental implant group showed mean marginal bone resorption at baseline of 0.10 ± 0.23 mm and 24 weeks later, marginal bone resorption was 0.16 ± 0.25 mm. The submerged dental implant group showed a significantly higher distal marginal bone resorption over the mesial side. Mean marginal bone resorption at baseline was 0.16 ± 0.32 on the mesial and 0.41 ± 0.56 on the distal side. Twenty-four weeks later, it was 0.69 ± 0.69 mm on the mesial and 0.99 ± 0.90 mm on the distal side. Conclusion. First, it was possible to determine that submerged implants had a higher mean marginal bone resorption and less bone-to-implant contact than nonsubmerged implants. And second, the distal side of submerged dental implants presented higher marginal bone loss than the mesial side.
AB - Purpose. To investigate peri-implant alveolar bone changes using periapical radiographs before and after prosthetic delivery in submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants. Methods. Digital periapical films of 60 ITI Straumann nonsubmerged dental implants and 60 Xive Dentsply submerged dental implants were taken before, immediately after, and 12 and 24 weeks after the prosthetic restoration was delivered. Results. The 60-nonsubmerged dental implant group showed mean marginal bone resorption at baseline of 0.10 ± 0.23 mm and 24 weeks later, marginal bone resorption was 0.16 ± 0.25 mm. The submerged dental implant group showed a significantly higher distal marginal bone resorption over the mesial side. Mean marginal bone resorption at baseline was 0.16 ± 0.32 on the mesial and 0.41 ± 0.56 on the distal side. Twenty-four weeks later, it was 0.69 ± 0.69 mm on the mesial and 0.99 ± 0.90 mm on the distal side. Conclusion. First, it was possible to determine that submerged implants had a higher mean marginal bone resorption and less bone-to-implant contact than nonsubmerged implants. And second, the distal side of submerged dental implants presented higher marginal bone loss than the mesial side.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85003881412&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85003881412&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2016/1472090
DO - 10.1155/2016/1472090
M3 - Article
C2 - 27999789
AN - SCOPUS:85003881412
SN - 2314-6133
VL - 2016
JO - BioMed Research International
JF - BioMed Research International
M1 - 1472090
ER -