One-year clinical evaluation of bone-level and tissue-level implants

Sarkis Sözkes(1), Gökçe Kayabay(2), Ayse Koçak Büyükdere(3)
(1) Namık Kemal University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tekirdağ, Türkiye,
(2) Private Practice, Ankara, Türkiye,
(3) Kocaeli University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Kocaeli, Türkiye

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to retrospectively examine and compare the clinical conditions of different implant levels at the end of 1 year. The clinical success is closely related to the loading time, the primary stability, oral hygiene, the features of the implant neck, and the bone structure.


Methodology: A total of 41 implants were applied to patients with a mean age of 52.76±11.39 years. Among these patients, 10 (47.6%) were female, and 11 (52.4%) were male. Out of the total of 19 implants, 46.3% were placed in the left mandible. Specifically, 14.6% were placed in the premolar area and 31.7% were placed in the molar region. The 22 (53.7%) remaining cases were placed in the right mandible, with 10 (24.4%) in the premolar region and 12 (29.3%) in the molar region. In all, 21 implants (51.2%) were placed at the bone level, whereas 20 implants (48.8%) were placed at the tissue level. Out of the total of 41 implants, 25 (61%) had a diameter of 3.3 mm, whereas 16 (39%) had a diameter of 4.1 mm. X-rays were taken to detect bone loss in the mesial and distal regions, transferred to the computer, and evaluated via IBM SPSS Statistics V22 software.


Results: In the study, 19 (46.3%) of the implants were placed in the left mandible and 22 (53.7%) in the right mandible. Approximately 51.2% of the implants were placed at the bone level, and 48.8% were at the tissue level. Initial Osstell values ranged from 72.88 ± 6.4 ISQ to 75.83 ± 5.92 ISQ. The initial X-ray results varied between 0.03 ± 0.09 mm and 0.38 ± 0.99 mm, whereas the final X-ray measurements were 0.15 ± 0.24 mm to 0.71 ± 1.54 mm.


Conclusion: Bone loss was determined to be less than 2 mm in both groups. Plaque accumulation occurred in the lingual region; however, it was observed more at the bone level. Hygiene control is the key for success, which could easily be accomplished with the gingival level of implants or the gingival positioning height of the abutments.


 

Full text article

Generated from XML file

Authors

Sarkis Sözkes
ssozkes@nku.edu.tr (Primary Contact)
Gökçe Kayabay
Ayse Koçak Büyükdere
Sözkes, S., Kayabay, G., & Büyükdere, A. K. (2024). One-year clinical evaluation of bone-level and tissue-level implants. International Dental Research. https://doi.org/10.5577/idr2024.392

Article Details

How to Cite

Sözkes, S., Kayabay, G., & Büyükdere, A. K. (2024). One-year clinical evaluation of bone-level and tissue-level implants. International Dental Research. https://doi.org/10.5577/idr2024.392
Smart Citations via scite_

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Mandibular Buccal Bone Thickness In Southeastern Anatolian People: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study

Ceren Aktuna Belgin, Ozkan Adiguzel, Marius Bud, Mehmet Colak, Zeki Akkus
Abstract View : 953
Download :725

Mandibular Bone Quality Associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection

COVID-19 Infection Effects On Mandibular Bone

Edanur Maraş, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics,...
Abstract View : 0