Comparison of the Marginal Bone Loss in One-stage versus Two-stage Implant Surgery

Statement of the Problem: Dental implant is one of the best choices for reconstruction of aesthetic and function. High success rate of these treatments are related to some considerations such as case selection, implant system selection and surgical methods. One-stage or two-stage surgical approaches...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rasoul Gheisari, Hesamuddin Eatemadi, Akram Alavian
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2017-12-01
Series:Journal of Dentistry
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dentjods.sums.ac.ir/index.php/JDSUMS/article/view/1629/1096
id doaj-1d4dd8b79c554ea8bc8704210d8276ac
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1d4dd8b79c554ea8bc8704210d8276ac2020-11-24T22:28:15ZengShiraz University of Medical SciencesJournal of Dentistry2345-64852345-64182017-12-01184272276Comparison of the Marginal Bone Loss in One-stage versus Two-stage Implant SurgeryRasoul Gheisari 0Hesamuddin Eatemadi 1Akram Alavian 2Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.Postgraduate Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.Dentist, Shiraz, Iran.Statement of the Problem: Dental implant is one of the best choices for reconstruction of aesthetic and function. High success rate of these treatments are related to some considerations such as case selection, implant system selection and surgical methods. One-stage or two-stage surgical approaches are routine surgical methods in dental implant treatments. The minimum rate of bone loss around fixtures is the most important criteria for evaluation of implant treatment success that can be affected by different methods of surgery. Purpose: This experimental study has been done to compare the crestal bone loss at mesial and distal surface of implants installed through either one-stage or two-stage surgical approach. Materials and Method: In the present randomized clinical trial, 310 Astra Tech implant system were divided into two unequal groups to be used for 140 patients. One hundred and seventy implants were inserted through one-stage and 140 through two-stage surgical approach. The baseline parallel periapical radiography was provided immediately after the surgery. Six months after the functional loading, another radiographic image was provided by using the same technique and machine. Marginal bone loss was calculated by using Adobe Photoshop CS5 software. Data were statistically analyzed with SPSS software. P values less than 0.05 were considered as significant. Results: The mean Bone loss on the mesial and distal surfaces of implants inserted through one-stage surgery and two-stage surgery was 0.76±0.04 and 0.842±0.04 mm respectively. No notable marginal bone change was observed between the maxilla (0.860mm) and mandible (0.729mm). Moreover, p Value was>0.05 in all samples, indicating no significant difference in the crestal bone loss. Conclusion: Accordingly, one-stage surgical technique may provide better esthetic and function for dental implants. There is no significant difference between the two approaches concerning the marginal bone loss. http://dentjods.sums.ac.ir/index.php/JDSUMS/article/view/1629/1096Dental ImplantMarginal Bone LossPeriapical Radiography
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Rasoul Gheisari
Hesamuddin Eatemadi
Akram Alavian
spellingShingle Rasoul Gheisari
Hesamuddin Eatemadi
Akram Alavian
Comparison of the Marginal Bone Loss in One-stage versus Two-stage Implant Surgery
Journal of Dentistry
Dental Implant
Marginal Bone Loss
Periapical Radiography
author_facet Rasoul Gheisari
Hesamuddin Eatemadi
Akram Alavian
author_sort Rasoul Gheisari
title Comparison of the Marginal Bone Loss in One-stage versus Two-stage Implant Surgery
title_short Comparison of the Marginal Bone Loss in One-stage versus Two-stage Implant Surgery
title_full Comparison of the Marginal Bone Loss in One-stage versus Two-stage Implant Surgery
title_fullStr Comparison of the Marginal Bone Loss in One-stage versus Two-stage Implant Surgery
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Marginal Bone Loss in One-stage versus Two-stage Implant Surgery
title_sort comparison of the marginal bone loss in one-stage versus two-stage implant surgery
publisher Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
series Journal of Dentistry
issn 2345-6485
2345-6418
publishDate 2017-12-01
description Statement of the Problem: Dental implant is one of the best choices for reconstruction of aesthetic and function. High success rate of these treatments are related to some considerations such as case selection, implant system selection and surgical methods. One-stage or two-stage surgical approaches are routine surgical methods in dental implant treatments. The minimum rate of bone loss around fixtures is the most important criteria for evaluation of implant treatment success that can be affected by different methods of surgery. Purpose: This experimental study has been done to compare the crestal bone loss at mesial and distal surface of implants installed through either one-stage or two-stage surgical approach. Materials and Method: In the present randomized clinical trial, 310 Astra Tech implant system were divided into two unequal groups to be used for 140 patients. One hundred and seventy implants were inserted through one-stage and 140 through two-stage surgical approach. The baseline parallel periapical radiography was provided immediately after the surgery. Six months after the functional loading, another radiographic image was provided by using the same technique and machine. Marginal bone loss was calculated by using Adobe Photoshop CS5 software. Data were statistically analyzed with SPSS software. P values less than 0.05 were considered as significant. Results: The mean Bone loss on the mesial and distal surfaces of implants inserted through one-stage surgery and two-stage surgery was 0.76±0.04 and 0.842±0.04 mm respectively. No notable marginal bone change was observed between the maxilla (0.860mm) and mandible (0.729mm). Moreover, p Value was>0.05 in all samples, indicating no significant difference in the crestal bone loss. Conclusion: Accordingly, one-stage surgical technique may provide better esthetic and function for dental implants. There is no significant difference between the two approaches concerning the marginal bone loss.
topic Dental Implant
Marginal Bone Loss
Periapical Radiography
url http://dentjods.sums.ac.ir/index.php/JDSUMS/article/view/1629/1096
work_keys_str_mv AT rasoulgheisari comparisonofthemarginalbonelossinonestageversustwostageimplantsurgery
AT hesamuddineatemadi comparisonofthemarginalbonelossinonestageversustwostageimplantsurgery
AT akramalavian comparisonofthemarginalbonelossinonestageversustwostageimplantsurgery
_version_ 1725747173110317056