Limits...
Evaluation of specifically designed implants placed in the low-density jaw bones: A clinico-radiographical study.

Munjal S, Munjal S, Hazari P, Mahajan H, Munjal A, Mehta DS - Contemp Clin Dent (2015 Jan-Mar)

Bottom Line: The mean plaque and gingival indices showed a reduction at repeated intervals.The mean sulcular bleeding showed a slight reduction which was statistically significant.An overall mean bone loss was observed after 12 months follow-up, which was statistically not significant.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontics, Institute of Dental Studies and Technologies, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India.

ABSTRACT

Aim: In the less dense bone, it is difficult to obtain implant anchorage. The present study was undertaken to determine the survival rate of Maestro™ implants placed in d3 and d4 bones.

Materials and methods: Fourteen patients (10 males and 4 females) were selected for the study and implants were evaluated for posttreatment changes in at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months from implant placement. The implant probing depth and mobility were recorded 3 and 6 months after prosthesis placement. Also, peri-implant bone level was assessed at the baseline and 12 months postoperatively, followed by a statistical analysis.

Results: The mean plaque and gingival indices showed a reduction at repeated intervals. The mean sulcular bleeding showed a slight reduction which was statistically significant. An overall mean bone loss was observed after 12 months follow-up, which was statistically not significant. The overall survival rate of implants was reported as 92.3%.

Conclusion: The specific implant used in the study is advantageous in the soft bone condition.

Clinical significance: Although, there is a great evidence of implant failure in compromised jaw quality, the newer designs and approaches suggest that the poor quality is not a contraindication.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Case 2: Pilot drill passed through stent, drilled osteotomy site, implant inserted, cover screw placed, flap repositioned, permucosal extension placed at uncovery stage, abutment milled for crown fabrication, crown delivered in occlusion
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4319343&req=5

Figure 4: Case 2: Pilot drill passed through stent, drilled osteotomy site, implant inserted, cover screw placed, flap repositioned, permucosal extension placed at uncovery stage, abutment milled for crown fabrication, crown delivered in occlusion

Mentions: The preliminary impressions were made to fabricate a surgical guide stent. On the surgery day, the patients were covered with a surgical drape and were made to rinse with 10 ml of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate solution. This was followed by the surgical extraoral scrubbing with Betadine (5% povidine iodine). Under the appropriate block, a midcrestal incision was given to elevate the mucoperiosteal flap. The osteotomy was done using a NSK 20:1 gear reduction hand piece attached to ATR® physiodispenser at 1300 rpm starting speed under copious sterile saline irrigation [Figures 3-4].


Evaluation of specifically designed implants placed in the low-density jaw bones: A clinico-radiographical study.

Munjal S, Munjal S, Hazari P, Mahajan H, Munjal A, Mehta DS - Contemp Clin Dent (2015 Jan-Mar)

Case 2: Pilot drill passed through stent, drilled osteotomy site, implant inserted, cover screw placed, flap repositioned, permucosal extension placed at uncovery stage, abutment milled for crown fabrication, crown delivered in occlusion
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4319343&req=5

Figure 4: Case 2: Pilot drill passed through stent, drilled osteotomy site, implant inserted, cover screw placed, flap repositioned, permucosal extension placed at uncovery stage, abutment milled for crown fabrication, crown delivered in occlusion
Mentions: The preliminary impressions were made to fabricate a surgical guide stent. On the surgery day, the patients were covered with a surgical drape and were made to rinse with 10 ml of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate solution. This was followed by the surgical extraoral scrubbing with Betadine (5% povidine iodine). Under the appropriate block, a midcrestal incision was given to elevate the mucoperiosteal flap. The osteotomy was done using a NSK 20:1 gear reduction hand piece attached to ATR® physiodispenser at 1300 rpm starting speed under copious sterile saline irrigation [Figures 3-4].

Bottom Line: The mean plaque and gingival indices showed a reduction at repeated intervals.The mean sulcular bleeding showed a slight reduction which was statistically significant.An overall mean bone loss was observed after 12 months follow-up, which was statistically not significant.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontics, Institute of Dental Studies and Technologies, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India.

ABSTRACT

Aim: In the less dense bone, it is difficult to obtain implant anchorage. The present study was undertaken to determine the survival rate of Maestro™ implants placed in d3 and d4 bones.

Materials and methods: Fourteen patients (10 males and 4 females) were selected for the study and implants were evaluated for posttreatment changes in at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months from implant placement. The implant probing depth and mobility were recorded 3 and 6 months after prosthesis placement. Also, peri-implant bone level was assessed at the baseline and 12 months postoperatively, followed by a statistical analysis.

Results: The mean plaque and gingival indices showed a reduction at repeated intervals. The mean sulcular bleeding showed a slight reduction which was statistically significant. An overall mean bone loss was observed after 12 months follow-up, which was statistically not significant. The overall survival rate of implants was reported as 92.3%.

Conclusion: The specific implant used in the study is advantageous in the soft bone condition.

Clinical significance: Although, there is a great evidence of implant failure in compromised jaw quality, the newer designs and approaches suggest that the poor quality is not a contraindication.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus