Manisha Verma, Anjani K Pathak, Umesh P Verma, Ranjit K Patil, Lakshya Yadav, Arunesh K Tiwari
{"title":"在骨结合阶段,比较浸没和非浸没种植体周围的骨质流失情况。","authors":"Manisha Verma, Anjani K Pathak, Umesh P Verma, Ranjit K Patil, Lakshya Yadav, Arunesh K Tiwari","doi":"10.4103/njms.njms_116_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Modern dentistry, the implant is the most popular and desirable management of tooth loss. Traditionally two stage (submerged) or one-stage (non-submerged) system has been added by many investigators. In the present study we evaluated the crestal bone loss during osseointegration phase among the three groups (i.e. submerged implants, non-submerged implants with anatomical healing abutment and non- submerged implants with esthetic healing abutment).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>10 subjects with 30 implants, were enrolled in the study. Subjects were randomized in three groups i.e., group 1 submerged (n=10), group 2 non-submerged with anatomical healing abutment (<i>n</i>=10), group 3 non submerged with esthetic healing abutments (<i>n</i>=10). Intraoral periapical radiograph (IOPA), IMAGE J software and CBCT were used to evaluate the crestal bone loss around each implant at baseline, 1 and 3 months after implant placement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Crestal bone loss at the end of the 3months (osseointegration phase) was lowest in the submerged group (0.18+-0.06mm) followed by non-submerged esthetic group (0.21+-0.03mm) but it was statistically insignificant. Maximum amount of bone loss was observed in non-submerged anatomical abutment group (0.34+-0.03mm) which was highly significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It can be concluded that submerged implants technique is a better option in comparison to non-submerged implant technique in terms of radiographical performance during initial phases of osseointegration.</p>","PeriodicalId":101444,"journal":{"name":"National journal of maxillofacial surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11371283/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of bone loss around submerged and non-submerged implants during osseointegration phase.\",\"authors\":\"Manisha Verma, Anjani K Pathak, Umesh P Verma, Ranjit K Patil, Lakshya Yadav, Arunesh K Tiwari\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/njms.njms_116_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In Modern dentistry, the implant is the most popular and desirable management of tooth loss. Traditionally two stage (submerged) or one-stage (non-submerged) system has been added by many investigators. In the present study we evaluated the crestal bone loss during osseointegration phase among the three groups (i.e. submerged implants, non-submerged implants with anatomical healing abutment and non- submerged implants with esthetic healing abutment).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>10 subjects with 30 implants, were enrolled in the study. Subjects were randomized in three groups i.e., group 1 submerged (n=10), group 2 non-submerged with anatomical healing abutment (<i>n</i>=10), group 3 non submerged with esthetic healing abutments (<i>n</i>=10). Intraoral periapical radiograph (IOPA), IMAGE J software and CBCT were used to evaluate the crestal bone loss around each implant at baseline, 1 and 3 months after implant placement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Crestal bone loss at the end of the 3months (osseointegration phase) was lowest in the submerged group (0.18+-0.06mm) followed by non-submerged esthetic group (0.21+-0.03mm) but it was statistically insignificant. Maximum amount of bone loss was observed in non-submerged anatomical abutment group (0.34+-0.03mm) which was highly significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It can be concluded that submerged implants technique is a better option in comparison to non-submerged implant technique in terms of radiographical performance during initial phases of osseointegration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"National journal of maxillofacial surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11371283/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"National journal of maxillofacial surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/njms.njms_116_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National journal of maxillofacial surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/njms.njms_116_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of bone loss around submerged and non-submerged implants during osseointegration phase.
Background: In Modern dentistry, the implant is the most popular and desirable management of tooth loss. Traditionally two stage (submerged) or one-stage (non-submerged) system has been added by many investigators. In the present study we evaluated the crestal bone loss during osseointegration phase among the three groups (i.e. submerged implants, non-submerged implants with anatomical healing abutment and non- submerged implants with esthetic healing abutment).
Material and methods: 10 subjects with 30 implants, were enrolled in the study. Subjects were randomized in three groups i.e., group 1 submerged (n=10), group 2 non-submerged with anatomical healing abutment (n=10), group 3 non submerged with esthetic healing abutments (n=10). Intraoral periapical radiograph (IOPA), IMAGE J software and CBCT were used to evaluate the crestal bone loss around each implant at baseline, 1 and 3 months after implant placement.
Results: Crestal bone loss at the end of the 3months (osseointegration phase) was lowest in the submerged group (0.18+-0.06mm) followed by non-submerged esthetic group (0.21+-0.03mm) but it was statistically insignificant. Maximum amount of bone loss was observed in non-submerged anatomical abutment group (0.34+-0.03mm) which was highly significant.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that submerged implants technique is a better option in comparison to non-submerged implant technique in terms of radiographical performance during initial phases of osseointegration.