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。

National journal of maxillofacial surgery Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-24 DOI:10.4103/njms.njms_116_22
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":"15 2","pages":"252-261"},"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\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"252-261\"},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在现代牙科中,种植体是最受欢迎和最理想的牙齿缺失治疗方法。传统上,许多研究者采用两阶段(浸没式)或一阶段(非浸没式)系统。在本研究中,我们评估了三组(即浸没式种植体、带有解剖愈合基台的非浸没式种植体和带有美学愈合基台的非浸没式种植体)在骨结合阶段的骨嵴骨质流失情况。受试者被随机分为三组,即第 1 组浸没种植体(10 人)、第 2 组非浸没种植体与解剖愈合基台(10 人)、第 3 组非浸没种植体与美学愈合基台(10 人)。口内根尖周X光片(IOPA)、IMAGE J软件和CBCT用于评估每颗种植体基底、植入后1个月和3个月时周围的牙槽骨流失情况:在 3 个月(骨结合阶段)结束时,浸没组的骨量损失最小(0.18+-0.06 毫米),其次是非浸没美容组(0.21+-0.03 毫米),但在统计学上并不显著。非浸没解剖基台组观察到的骨量损失最大(0.34+-0.03mm),且非常显著:可以得出结论,就骨结合初期的放射学表现而言,浸没式种植体技术比非浸没式种植体技术更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Patterns and characteristics of maxillofacial trauma among children and adolescents: A Bi-institutional retrospective study. Presence of antilingula and its relationship to mandibular foramen-An anatomical study. Primary non-radiation induced angiosarcoma of the parotid with epithelioid morphology. Radiation effects in head and neck and role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy: An adjunct to management. The surgical outcome of sutureless skin closures using Octyl-2-cyanoacrylate (Dermabond™) versus Steri-Strip™.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1