Implant Stability Parameters & Bone Density Values of Different Graft Materials with Immediately Placed Dental Implants | ||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||
| Article 6, Volume 64, Issue 4 - October (Oral Surgery), October 2018, Pages 3135-3148 PDF (2.38 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2018.78524 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Omnia I. Sultan1; Ingy M. Chehata2; Ahmed M Hossam3 | ||
| 1Lecturer of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. Faculty of Dentistry. October University of Modern Sciences and Arts | ||
| 2Assistant Professor of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. Faculty of Dentistry. October University of Modern Sciences and Arts | ||
| 3Lecturer of Radiology. October University of Modern Sciences and Art. Egypt | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Objectives: This study was conducted to assess and compare the effect of autogenous bone graft versus mineralized plasmatic matrix (MPM) and versus the Nano hydroxyapatite bone graft as bone regenerative materials during immediate implant placement. Material and Methods: A total of 14 patients with 18 implants have been included in this study, patients were divided into 3 groups. Group I(control group) received autogenous bone graft. Group II (study group A) received Mineralized Plasmatic Matrix (MPM), and group III (study group B) received Nano hydroxyapatite as bone regenerative materials for immediate implant placement. The treatment outcome was evaluated clinically and radiographically at 3 and 6 months of implant placement. Implants stability was measured using Osstell radiofrequency device at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Also bone density were measured radiographically at 2 weeks and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively and statistically analysed. Results: Statistical analysis of bone density measurements between the three groups showed significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) between the control autogenous bone group and the two other groups (MPM &Nano bone) at all time intervals. Comparison between the test groups revealed non-significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) between (MPM & Nano bone) at two weeks interval. While at three & six months postoperatively there was a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05 between the two groups. Regarding implant stability comparison between the three groups , there was no statistical significant difference between them (P ≤ 0.05) at three and six months post operatively. Conclusion: The autogenous bone graft remains the gold standard for grafting materials but the use of MPM and Nano hydroxyapatite grafting materials can also give successful results regarding implant stability and bone density. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Immediate implant; autogenous bone graft; MPM; Nano hydroxyapetite bone graft; bone regeneration; osseointegration; growth factors; platelets concentrates | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 184 PDF Download: 368 |
||
