Marginal bone resorption of posterior mandible dental implants with different insertion methods
Маргинальная резорбция костной ткани вокруг дентальных имплантатов в заднем отделе нижней челюсти при различных методах установки
2020-01-31
SCID: 54.1/24bttqhf
Discuss with AI
dental implantsmanual insertionmarginal bone lossmechanized insertionposterior mandible
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
BACKGROUND: To evaluated the marginal bone loss around dental implants by two insertion methods. METHODS: Eligible 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). RESULTS: After 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). CONCLUSIONS: Under 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.
Key Findings
1
Among 273 patients, mean marginal bone loss after three months was 0.44 ± 0.84 mm with manual insertion and 0.51 ± 0.20 mm with mechanized insertion.
2
At six months, mean marginal bone loss was 0.59 ± 0.20 mm for manual insertion versus 0.67 ± 0.19 mm for mechanized insertion.
3
Both techniques were considered safe and associated with an acceptable amount of marginal bone resorption under the study conditions.
4
The insertion methods did not differ significantly in marginal bone loss at three months (p = 0.24), but manual insertion produced significantly less loss at six months (p < 0.001).
5
The study compared marginal bone loss around posterior mandibular implants placed using manual versus mechanized insertion methods.
Research Object
Posterior mandible dental implants inserted using manual or mechanized methods
Research Subject
Marginal bone loss around the implants over three- and six-month follow-up periods, comparing the two insertion methods
Publication Details
Publication Date
2020-01-31
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest