The Effects of Different Variables on Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants

IF 0.2 4区医学 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

West Indian Medical Journal Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.7727/wimj.2018.068

B. Orhan, G. Sönmez, Mehmet Ozgur Ozemre, C. K. Secgin, K. Kamburoğlu, A. Gulsahi

{"title":"The Effects of Different Variables on Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants","authors":"B. Orhan, G. Sönmez, Mehmet Ozgur Ozemre, C. K. Secgin, K. Kamburoğlu, A. Gulsahi","doi":"10.7727/wimj.2018.068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To assess the effects of different variables including implant type and thread design, bone width and height measured on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, along with systemic and patient related factors on marginal bone loss around dental implants which were measured on postoperative panoramic radiographs. Methods: A total of 116 dental implants from two manufacturers were used in the study. Age, gender, history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension, smoking habit, implant thread type, implant site, length and diameter were recorded. Available alveolar bone width and height were measured on preoperative CBCT images. Marginal bone loss around dental implants was measured on the panoramic radiographs taken three months after implant placement on both mesial and distal sides. Results: There were no statistically significant differences for the measurements of marginal bone loss on both distal and mesial sides according to gender, region, jaw and implant type. While there was a significant difference between patients with and without diabetes mellitus in terms of distal marginal bone loss (p < 0.05); no significant difference was found between patients with and without diabetes mellitus for mesial marginal bone loss. The mean of marginal bone loss was 1.43 ± 0.75 mm and 1.45 ± 0.75 at the distal and mesial sides, respectively. We found statistically significant differences for alveolar width and marginal bone loss. However, no significant differences were found for the height measurements. Conclusion: Marginal bone loss increased with an increase in bone width. There were no significant differences for the measurements of marginal bone loss on both distal and mesial sides according to gender, region, jaw, and implant type.","PeriodicalId":49366,"journal":{"name":"West Indian Medical Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"West Indian Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7727/wimj.2018.068","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effects of different variables including implant type and thread design, bone width and height measured on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, along with systemic and patient related factors on marginal bone loss around dental implants which were measured on postoperative panoramic radiographs. Methods: A total of 116 dental implants from two manufacturers were used in the study. Age, gender, history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension, smoking habit, implant thread type, implant site, length and diameter were recorded. Available alveolar bone width and height were measured on preoperative CBCT images. Marginal bone loss around dental implants was measured on the panoramic radiographs taken three months after implant placement on both mesial and distal sides. Results: There were no statistically significant differences for the measurements of marginal bone loss on both distal and mesial sides according to gender, region, jaw and implant type. While there was a significant difference between patients with and without diabetes mellitus in terms of distal marginal bone loss (p < 0.05); no significant difference was found between patients with and without diabetes mellitus for mesial marginal bone loss. The mean of marginal bone loss was 1.43 ± 0.75 mm and 1.45 ± 0.75 at the distal and mesial sides, respectively. We found statistically significant differences for alveolar width and marginal bone loss. However, no significant differences were found for the height measurements. Conclusion: Marginal bone loss increased with an increase in bone width. There were no significant differences for the measurements of marginal bone loss on both distal and mesial sides according to gender, region, jaw, and implant type.

查看原文本刊更多论文

不同变量对种植体周围边缘骨丢失的影响

目的:探讨种植体类型和螺纹设计、锥体束ct (cone beam computed tomography, CBCT)图像测量的骨宽度和骨高度，以及系统因素和患者相关因素对术后全景x线片测量的种植体周围边缘骨质流失的影响。方法:采用两家生产厂家生产的116颗种植体进行研究。记录年龄、性别、糖尿病和高血压病史、吸烟习惯、种植体螺纹类型、种植体位置、种植体长度和直径。术前CBCT图像测量可用牙槽骨宽度和高度。在种植体放置三个月后，在近中侧和远侧的全景x线片上测量种植体周围的边缘骨质流失。结果:不同性别、不同区域、不同颌骨、不同种植体类型的患者，远侧和中侧边缘骨丢失量差异无统计学意义。而糖尿病患者与非糖尿病患者远端边缘骨丢失有显著性差异(p < 0.05);糖尿病患者与非糖尿病患者的中边缘骨质流失无显著差异。远侧和中侧边缘骨丢失的平均值分别为1.43±0.75 mm和1.45±0.75 mm。我们发现牙槽宽度和边缘骨质流失在统计学上有显著差异。然而，身高测量没有发现显著差异。结论:随着骨宽的增加，边缘骨丢失增加。根据性别、区域、颌骨和种植体类型，远端和中端边缘骨丢失的测量结果没有显著差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

West Indian Medical Journal 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

0.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal is international in scope, with author and editorial contributions from across the globe. The focus is on clinical and epidemiological aspects of tropical and infectious diseases, new and re-emerging infections, chronic non-communicable diseases, and medical conditions prevalent in the Latin America-Caribbean region, and of significance to global health, especially in developing countries. The Journal covers all medical disciplines, as well as basic and translational research elucidating the pathophysiologic basis of diseases or focussing on new therapeutic approaches, and publishes original scientific research, reviews, case reports, brief communications, letters, commentaries and medical images. The Journal publishes four to six issues and four supplements annually. English is the language of publication but Abstracts are also duplicated in Spanish. Most of the articles are submitted at the authors’ initiative, but some are solicited by the Editor-in-Chief. Unless expressly stated, the Editorial Board does not accept responsibility for authors’ opinions. All papers on submission are reviewed by a subcommittee. Those deemed worthy for review are sent to two or three reviewers (one of the three might be a statistician if necessary). The returned papers with reviewer comments are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. Papers may be rejected, accepted or sent back to authors for revision. Resubmitted papers from authors are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and may be sent back to reviewers or a final decision made by Editor-in-Chief. The decision of the Editorial Board is final with regards to rejected articles. Rejected articles will not be returned to the authors. The editorial subcommittee has the right to return sub-standard manuscripts to the authors, rather than passing them on to the reviewers. This implies outright rejection of the manuscript.