SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of bone resorption after implant surgery: Analysis of short-term follow-up

Ayşe ÖZCAN KÜÇÜK
Aydın KESKİNRÜZGAR
Pages
438–442
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Resorption values in the molar region in the jaws were significantly higher than the amount of resorption in the anterior region (p=0.17).Conclusion: In this study, the marginal bone resorption around the implant was assessed between the implant surgery and the prosthetic loading, where it was found to be 0.24 mm in mandible and maxilla.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the amounts of marginal bone resorption around the implant that occurs after the implant surgery before the prosthetic loading by evaluating the patients who received implants in oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic.Material and Methods: Two hundred and fifty-three implant surgeries that were performed in the period from 2016 to 2017 were included in this study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The panoramic X-rays taken immediately after implantation and before prosthetic loading at 3 months were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Resorption values in the molar region in the jaws were significantly higher than the amount of resorption in the anterior region (p=0.17).Conclusion: In this study, the marginal bone resorption around the implant was assessed between the implant surgery and the prosthetic loading, where it was found to be 0.24 mm in mandible and maxilla.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the amounts of marginal bone resorption around the implant that occurs after the implant surgery before the prosthetic loading by evaluating the patients who received implants in oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic.Material and Methods: Two hundred and fifty-three implant surgeries that were performed in the period from 2016 to 2017 were included in this study. The panoramic X-rays taken immediately after implantation and before prosthetic loading at 3 months were evaluated. The marginal bone resorptions around the implants were measured and these values were compared with respect to the gender of the patient and the size of the jaw areas.Results: Implant surgeries were performed on a total of 91 patients (50 females and 41 males). The mean age of the patients was 46.03 ± 12.13 years. One hundred and forty-four implants were evaluated in male patients, while 109 implants were evaluated in females. Marginal bone resorption around the implants in males was observed to be statistically significantly higher than in females (p=0.00). There was no statistically significant difference (p=0.76) between the resorption values of mandible and maxilla. Resorption values in the molar region in the jaws were significantly higher than the amount of resorption in the anterior region (p=0.17).Conclusion: In this study, the marginal bone resorption around the implant was assessed between the implant surgery and the prosthetic loading, where it was found to be 0.24 mm in mandible and maxilla. In addition, both jaws were observed to have the lowest resorption amount in the anterior region and the highest resorption amount in the molar region.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÜÇÜK, A. Ö., KESKİNRÜZGAR, A. (2022). Evaluation of bone resorption after implant surgery: Analysis of short-term follow-up. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3, 438–442. https://ajindex.com/articles/446757

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Albrektsson T, Dahlin C, Jemt T, et al. Is marginal bone loss around oral implants the result of a provoked foreign body reaction? Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16:155-65
  2. Hof M, Pommer B, Zukic N, et al. Influence of prosthetic parameters on peri-implant bone resorption in the first year of loading: a multi-factorial analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e183-91
  3. Mosnegutu A, Wismeijer D, Geraets W. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures can minimize mandibular bone resorption in edentulous patients: results of a long-term radiologic evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:1378-86
  4. Pommer B, Krainhöfner M, Watzek G, et al. Relevance of variations in the opposing dentition for the functionality of fixed and removable partial dentures: a systematic review. Int J Dent 2012;2012:1-17
  5. Smith DE, Zarb GA. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:567-72
  6. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, et al. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25
  7. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17:5-15
  8. Al-Juboori MJ, AbdulRahaman SB, Hassan A. The correlation between crestal bone resorption and implant stability during healing period using resonance frequency analysis. Implant Dent 2013;22:351-5
  9. Yang SM, Shin SY, Kye SB. Relationship between implant stability measured by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and bone loss during early healing period. Oral Surg Medic Path Rad End 2008;105:12-1
  10. Misch CE. Density of bone: Effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing and progressive bone loading. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;6:23-31
  11. Lee JW, An JH, Park SH, et al. Retrospective clinical study of an implant with a sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched surface and internal connection: analysis of short-term success rate and marginal bone loss. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;38:1-7
  12. Gatti C, Gatti F, Silvestri M, et al. A Prospective Multicenter Study on Radiographic Crestal Bone Changes Around Dental Implants Placed at Crestal or Subcrestal Level: One-Year Findings. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33:913-8
  13. Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, et al. Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of ma