Balaji Nagarajan1, Varsha Murthy2, David Livingstone2, Manohar Paul Surendra3, Srinivasan Jayaraman2. 1. Post Graduate, Department of Prosthodontics & Implantology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences , Puducherry, India . 2. Professor, Department of Prosthodontics & Implantology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences , Puducherry, India . 3. Professor and Head of the Department, Department of Prosthodontics & Implantology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences , Puducherry, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Depth of placement of implant shoulder in relation to the crestal bone positively influence bone remodelling and preservation but the role of placement depth on bone loss before loading is not very clear. AIM: To assess the effect of placement depth alone on the crestal bone loss around implant placed at subcrestal and equicrestal level before prosthetic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients reporting to the Department of Prosthodontics with the complaint of missing teeth were enrolled in the study after analysing inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 24 implants were planned to be placed into two groups as Group E (n=12) and Group S (n=12). Follow up radiographs after implant placement and after six months were analysed for the amount of bone loss. RESULTS: On six months follow up crestal bone levels of Group E were apical to Group S. Bone loss comparison between groups after six months follow up, revealed almost same mean bone loss. CONCLUSION: The implants placed at subcrestal and equicrestal level did not show difference in crestal bone loss before prosthetic loading.
INTRODUCTION: Depth of placement of implant shoulder in relation to the crestal bone positively influence bone remodelling and preservation but the role of placement depth on bone loss before loading is not very clear. AIM: To assess the effect of placement depth alone on the crestal bone loss around implant placed at subcrestal and equicrestal level before prosthetic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients reporting to the Department of Prosthodontics with the complaint of missing teeth were enrolled in the study after analysing inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 24 implants were planned to be placed into two groups as Group E (n=12) and Group S (n=12). Follow up radiographs after implant placement and after six months were analysed for the amount of bone loss. RESULTS: On six months follow up crestal bone levels of Group E were apical to Group S. Bone loss comparison between groups after six months follow up, revealed almost same mean bone loss. CONCLUSION: The implants placed at subcrestal and equicrestal level did not show difference in crestal bone loss before prosthetic loading.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone preservation; Dental implants; Placement depth; Prosthetic loading
Authors: Avi E Stein; Edwin A McGlmphy; William M Johnston; Peter E Larsen Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Nicolas Elian; Mitchell Bloom; Michel Dard; Sang-Choon Cho; Richard D Trushkowsky; Dennis Tarnow Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Arthur B Novaes; Rafael R de Oliveira; Mário Taba Júnior; Sérgio L S de Souza; Daniela B Palioto; Márcio F M Grisi; Vula Papalexiou Journal: J Oral Implantol Date: 2005 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: H Pellicer-Chover; M Díaz-Sanchez; D Soto-Peñaloza; M-A Peñarrocha-Diago; L Canullo; D Peñarrocha-Oltra Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2019-09-01