CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF MAXILLARY SMALL DIAMETER IMPLANT SUPPORTED SCREW RETAINED RESTORATIONS: A TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS FOLLOW-UP | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 40, Volume 63, Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics), January 2017, Page 1077-1087 PDF (968.71 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2017.75262 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Heba E. Khorshid; Nora M. Sheta | ||||
| Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Purpose: The Target of this work was to clinically and radiographically evaluate the marginal bone loss and stability of Small Diameter Implants in comparison with Standard Diameter implants in implant supported screw retained maxillary prostheses. Materials and Methods: In this study, a total of seventy two implants were placed in twelve patients with completely edentulous maxillae. The patients were randomly grouped into two groups: Group A received small diameter implant and Group B received standard diameter implants. For each patient, six implants were placed in the lateral incisor/Canine region, first premolar and first molar region. Bone height measurements as well as Osstell RFA (resonance frequency analysis) measurements around each implant were performed at zero, four, eight and twenty-four months after definitive prostheses delivery. Results: In this study, a total of 72 implants were installed (36 small diameter implants and 36 standard diameter implants). At the end of the 24 months follow-up period, statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the crestal bone height and ISQ (implant stability quotient) values (p≤0.05) between the Group A and Group B. Conclusion: Within the limited observation period and the number of patients included in this study, it may be concluded that the use of small-diameter implants appeared to be predictable if proper clinical guidelines are followed and appropriate prosthetic restorations are provided. Small-diameter implant supported screw retained restorations have success rate that appear to be comparable to that of standard diameter implants. This might thus be an efficient, low-cost solution, avoiding extensive bone augmentation procedures and reducing the surgical complexity of implant rehabilitations. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 68 PDF Download: 182 |
||||
