Radiographic evaluation of alveolar bone height changes around mandibular implants with different surface treatments supporting mandibular overdenture (A split mouth comparative study ) | ||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||
| Volume 70, Issue 1 - Serial Number 4, January 2024, Pages 531-541 PDF (1.84 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2023.249777.2787 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Doaa Mahmoud Elkady* 1; islam shawky shaker2 | ||
| 1Lecturer of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. | ||
| 2Lecturer of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Misr International University. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Abstract: Aim: This study was done to evaluate the bony changes around micro textured acid washed surface treated implants and sandblasted acid-etched surface treated implants installed in the mandible of completely edentulous patients. Materials and methods: Evaluation of the marginal bone loss around implants was performed using cone beam radiographic evaluation, bone resorption was measured as the distance between implant-abutment junction and the first implant-bone contact. Implant dimensions, width and length, were used for software calibration to compensate for radiographic magnification. . The two installed implants were early-loaded. Marginal bone loss was evaluated during the early loading period after 6w ad 3m months by subtracting bone level values in millimeters of buccal and lingual aspects of each implant from values at base line and averaged . Results: The results of these studies revealed that Implant I (Microtextured acid washed implant surface treatment ) showed a non statistically significant difference compared to Implant II (Neodent acqua, implant surface treatment with sand blasted acid itched) regarding the bone loss, however there was a statistically significant difference between bone loss evaluation between the two periods at 6w and 3m . Conclusion: According to the discussion, and considering the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that both implants with different surface treatments exhibit a desirable effect on the surrounding alveolar bone around both mandibular implants . | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Keywards: Radiographic evaluation; mandibular implants; surface treatment; mandibular overdenture and stud attachments | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 193 PDF Download: 192 |
||
