IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Comparison of Tissue-Bone Level Implants: One Year Follow-Up
Objectives: To assess the one year survival of tissue-bone level dental implants.
Methods: A total of 23 patients, 66 implants (9 females, 14 males, 35-82 years old), were randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups; tissue level (TL) , bone level(BL) groups (Straumann). Osstell™ ISQ was used to measure the implants stability. In this study 22 of them were crowns, 12 of them were splinted crowns, 26 of them were fixed partial dentures and 6 of them were with mesial cantilevers’. Patients were followed to evaluation protocol involved technical and biological failures. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). Before and after implant therapy, plaques indexes (PI), periodontal pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP), bone level were measured by the periapical x-ray. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS for Windows version 22.0.
Results: Osstell™ ISQ results did not show significant differences in both directions in BL and TL. PI, PPD did not show significant differences at the follow up comparing to two types implants. BOP was seen, in the buccal part of BL and in the distal part of the TL, which were statistically significantly different (p<0.05) in the first six months after the treatment. In both groups, bone resorption were observed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in both six months. In BL, bone resorption statistically different (p<0.05) were observed in both mesial and distal. In TL, bone resorption statistically different (p<0.05) were seen in second six months in both sides. According to GOHAI and OHIP-14 did not show significant difference between baseline and after implant therapy in both groups (p>0.05). In the follow up there was not any technical and biological failure
Conclusions: Dental implant was good alternative for fixed partial dentures. In the non esthetics part TL is more advantage to see the connection.
Methods: A total of 23 patients, 66 implants (9 females, 14 males, 35-82 years old), were randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups; tissue level (TL) , bone level(BL) groups (Straumann). Osstell™ ISQ was used to measure the implants stability. In this study 22 of them were crowns, 12 of them were splinted crowns, 26 of them were fixed partial dentures and 6 of them were with mesial cantilevers’. Patients were followed to evaluation protocol involved technical and biological failures. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) and the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). Before and after implant therapy, plaques indexes (PI), periodontal pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP), bone level were measured by the periapical x-ray. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS for Windows version 22.0.
Results: Osstell™ ISQ results did not show significant differences in both directions in BL and TL. PI, PPD did not show significant differences at the follow up comparing to two types implants. BOP was seen, in the buccal part of BL and in the distal part of the TL, which were statistically significantly different (p<0.05) in the first six months after the treatment. In both groups, bone resorption were observed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in both six months. In BL, bone resorption statistically different (p<0.05) were observed in both mesial and distal. In TL, bone resorption statistically different (p<0.05) were seen in second six months in both sides. According to GOHAI and OHIP-14 did not show significant difference between baseline and after implant therapy in both groups (p>0.05). In the follow up there was not any technical and biological failure
Conclusions: Dental implant was good alternative for fixed partial dentures. In the non esthetics part TL is more advantage to see the connection.