| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 21
| Issue : 1 | Page : 74-80 |
|
|
A randomized clinical study to compare implant stability and bone loss using early loading protocol in two implant systems with different design
Rani Ranabhatt, Kamleshwar Singh, Ramashanker Siddharth, Shuchi Tripathi, Deeksha Arya
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Kamleshwar Singh
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_297_20
|
|
|
Aims: The study compared changes in implant stability and bone loss of implants with different designs using early loading at 6 weeks.
Setting and Design: In vivo-comparative study.
Materials and Methods: Forty subjects were selected and divided randomly by sealed envelope method in Group X and Group A for early loading for missing single posterior tooth in mandible. Implants in Group X had flared crest module and buttress thread design, whereas implants in Group A had parallel crest module and V-shaped thread design. All subjects were evaluated by Ostell for implant stability at the interval of baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. ImageJ software was used for measurement of crestal bone loss in intraoral periapical radiographs at the interval of 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.
Statistical Analysis Used: Unpaired t test, repeated ANOVA, Tukey post hoc test.
Results: The mean bone loss values of Group X at predetermined interval were 1.51 ± 0.20 mm, 2.11 ± 0.21 mm and 2.13 ± 0.21 mm. The mean bone loss values of Group A were 1.79 ± 0.16 mm, 2.92 ± 0.23 mm and 2.95 ± 0.23 mm. The mean bone loss was statistical significant (P < 0.05) at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. It was highly significant in Group A at 6 months (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: It was concluded that Group X implants design showed better implant stability and less bone loss when compared to Group A implants design.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
