The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society (Jan 2022)

A randomized controlled trial for evaluation of bone density changes around immediate functionally and nonfunctionally loaded implants using three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography

  • Kamleshwar Singh,
  • Pooran Chand,
  • Akhilanand Chaurasia,
  • Neeti Solanki,
  • Anupama Pathak

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_327_21
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22, no. 1
pp. 74 – 81

Abstract

Read online

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare and assess bone density changes around immediate functionally and nonfunctionally loaded implants. Settings and design: In vivo comparative study Materials and Methods: Sixty participants selected based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria received single tooth implants in mandible under two implant loading protocols: Immediate functionally loaded (IFL) and immediate nonfunctionally loaded (INFL). Randomization was done by computer-aided simple randomization procedure. Self-tapering, aggressive SLA implants were placed in the single tooth edentulous sites of mandible in both the groups. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (3D CBCT) was taken at baseline, 3 and 6 months postimplant placement. Quantitative analysis of the bone density was performed using 3D CBCT in three areas around the implants at crestal, middle, and apical regions of implants. Statistical Analysis Used: Quantitative data were summarized as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software version 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) by unpaired t-test. Results: Bone density changes after implant placement in IFL group from baseline to 3 months were; crestal region (314.18 ± 71.69), middle (278.23 ± 70.17), apical (274.70 ± 59.79) and changes from 3 to 6 months were; crestal (−105.55 ± 39.60), middle (−114.80 ± 41.46), apical (−141.88 ± 69.58). Bone density changes after implant placement in INFL group from baseline to 3 months were crestal region (199.42 ± 47.97), middle (56.91 ± 10.39), apical (200.98 ± 67.43) and changes from 3 to 6 months were; crestal (−194.38 ± 75.30), middle (−204.40 ± 63.75), apical (−191.28 ± 62.33). Conclusions: It was concluded that INFL implant group showed better bone density when compared to IFL implant group.

Keywords