Cargando…

Evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the effect of implant body form (cylindrical and conical implants) on crestal bone levels during 6 months’ follow-up after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 32 SPI implants (19 conical implants/13 cylindrical implants) were rando...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sargolzaie, Naser, Arab, Hamid Reza, Moghaddam, Marzieh Mohammadi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28932140
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_38_17
_version_ 1783263296571310080
author Sargolzaie, Naser
Arab, Hamid Reza
Moghaddam, Marzieh Mohammadi
author_facet Sargolzaie, Naser
Arab, Hamid Reza
Moghaddam, Marzieh Mohammadi
author_sort Sargolzaie, Naser
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the effect of implant body form (cylindrical and conical implants) on crestal bone levels during 6 months’ follow-up after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 32 SPI implants (19 conical implants/13 cylindrical implants) were randomly placed in 12 male patients using a submerged approach. None of the patients had compromising medical conditions or parafunctional habits. Periapical radiographs using the parallel technique were taken after clinical loading and 6 months later. Clinical indices including pocket depth and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded on 6-month follow-up. Data were analyzed by independent samples t-test and Chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Six months after loading, crestal bone loss was 0.84 (±0.29) mm around the cylindrical implants and 0.73 (±0.62) mm around the conical types, which was not significantly different (P = 0.54). Pocket depth around the cylindrical and conical implants was 2.61 (±0.45) mm and 2.36 (±0.44) mm, respectively (P = 0.13). BOP was observed among 53.8% and 47.4% of the cylindrical implants and conical (P = 0.13). Bone loss and pocket depth in the maxilla and mandible had no significant difference (P = 0.46 and P = 0.09, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this study, although bone loss and clinical parameters were slightly higher in the cylindrical implants, there was no significant difference between the conical- and cylindrical-shaped implants.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5594959
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55949592017-09-20 Evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: A randomized clinical trial Sargolzaie, Naser Arab, Hamid Reza Moghaddam, Marzieh Mohammadi Eur J Dent Original Article OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the effect of implant body form (cylindrical and conical implants) on crestal bone levels during 6 months’ follow-up after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 32 SPI implants (19 conical implants/13 cylindrical implants) were randomly placed in 12 male patients using a submerged approach. None of the patients had compromising medical conditions or parafunctional habits. Periapical radiographs using the parallel technique were taken after clinical loading and 6 months later. Clinical indices including pocket depth and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded on 6-month follow-up. Data were analyzed by independent samples t-test and Chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Six months after loading, crestal bone loss was 0.84 (±0.29) mm around the cylindrical implants and 0.73 (±0.62) mm around the conical types, which was not significantly different (P = 0.54). Pocket depth around the cylindrical and conical implants was 2.61 (±0.45) mm and 2.36 (±0.44) mm, respectively (P = 0.13). BOP was observed among 53.8% and 47.4% of the cylindrical implants and conical (P = 0.13). Bone loss and pocket depth in the maxilla and mandible had no significant difference (P = 0.46 and P = 0.09, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this study, although bone loss and clinical parameters were slightly higher in the cylindrical implants, there was no significant difference between the conical- and cylindrical-shaped implants. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5594959/ /pubmed/28932140 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_38_17 Text en Copyright: © 2017 European Journal of Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Sargolzaie, Naser
Arab, Hamid Reza
Moghaddam, Marzieh Mohammadi
Evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: A randomized clinical trial
title Evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: A randomized clinical trial
title_full Evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: A randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: A randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: A randomized clinical trial
title_short Evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: A randomized clinical trial
title_sort evaluation of crestal bone resorption around cylindrical and conical implants following 6 months of loading: a randomized clinical trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28932140
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_38_17
work_keys_str_mv AT sargolzaienaser evaluationofcrestalboneresorptionaroundcylindricalandconicalimplantsfollowing6monthsofloadingarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT arabhamidreza evaluationofcrestalboneresorptionaroundcylindricalandconicalimplantsfollowing6monthsofloadingarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT moghaddammarziehmohammadi evaluationofcrestalboneresorptionaroundcylindricalandconicalimplantsfollowing6monthsofloadingarandomizedclinicaltrial