Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul-Dec;5(2):126-37.
doi: 10.4103/0975-5950.154813.

A radiological evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants: An in-vivo study

Shikha Nandal  1 , Pankaj Ghalaut  1 , Himanshu Shekhawat  1
Affiliations

A radiological evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants: An in-vivo study

Shikha Nandal et al. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Jul-Dec.

Abstract

Context: This article presents an original research conducted at Government Dental College, PGIDS, Rohtak.

Aims: (1) To evaluate the marginal bone level changes around dental implants based on the radiological examination. (2) To evaluate the relationship of various parameters, i.e., gender, implant length, implant diameter and location of implants on the amount of bone loss around dental implants.

Materials and methods: An in-vivo study was undertaken to evaluate the crestal bone loss on mesial and distal aspect of implants, using standardized intra-oral periapical at the end of 6 months after placing the implants, but before prosthetically loading it.

Statistical analysis used: Student's unpaired t-test.

Results: Bone loss was measured and values were recorded immediately after implant placement and after 6 months.

Conclusions: (1) Bone loss on mesial and distal aspects of implants was found to be same after period of 6 months. (2) Bone loss was found to be same in both 13 mm and 10 mm implants on mesial aspect, whereas on distal aspect, it was more in 10 mm implants. (3) Bone loss was found to be same in both 3.5 mm and 4.3 mm diameter implants on both mesial and distal aspects of implants. (4) Bone loss was found to be same in both maxilla and mandible on both mesial and distal aspects of implants. (5) Bone loss was found to be more in females on both mesial as well as distal aspects of implants.

Keywords: Bone loss; distal; implant; mesial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pre-operative intra-oral view in occlusion (missing 11)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pre-operative intra-oral view (missing 11)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pre-operative intra-oral periapical
Figure 4
Figure 4
Pre-operative orthopantomogram with 5 mm diameter ball bearing
Figure 5
Figure 5
Rinn XCP film holder, Dentsply (for anterior teeth)
Figure 6
Figure 6
Rinn XCP film holder, Dentsply (for posterior teeth)
Figure 7
Figure 7
Basic armamentarium used in fabrication of custom-occlusal jig
Figure 8
Figure 8
Softened modeling wax attached to Rinn XCP film holder, Dentsply, for making customized occlusal bite jig
Figure 9
Figure 9
Fabrication of customized occlusal bite jig for obtaining standardized intra-oral periapical radiographs using Rinn XCP film holder (Dentsply)
Figure 10
Figure 10
Customized occlusal bite jig
Figure 11
Figure 11
Taking radiograph using customized occlusal bite jig and Rinn XCP film holder
Figure 12
Figure 12
Customized occlusal bite jig acrylized in heat-cure acrylic
Figure 13
Figure 13
Intra-oral periapical radiograph (at 0 month)
Figure 14
Figure 14
Intra-oral periapical radiograph (at 6 months)
Figure 15
Figure 15
Measurement of marginal bone level from the reference line using UTHSCSA Image Tool (Version 3.00 for Windows, University of Texas Health Science Centre in San Antonio, TX, USA)
Figure 16
Figure 16
Comparison of bone loss on mesial and distal after 6 months for Group-1 (13 mm) verses Group-2 (10 mm) for parameter-1 (implant length)
Figure 17
Figure 17
Comparison of bone loss on mesial and distal after 6 months Group-1 (3.5 mm) versus Group-2 (4.3 mm) for parameter-2 (implant diameter)
Figure 18
Figure 18
Comparison of bone loss on mesial and distal after 6 months Group-1 (maxilla) versus Group-2 (Mandible) for parameter-3 (implant location)
Figure 19
Figure 19
Comparison of bone loss on mesial and distal after 6 months Group-1 (male) versus Group-2 (female) for parameter-4 (gender)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Branemark PI. Introduction to osseointegration. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publ; 1985. pp. 11–76.
    1. Ashley ET, Covington LL, Bishop BG, Breault LG. Ailing and failing endosseous dental implants: A literature review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2003;4:35–50. - PubMed
    1. Lavstedt S, Bolin A, Henrikson CO. Proximal alveolar bone loss in a longitudinal radiographic investigation. II. A 10-year follow-up study of an epidemiologic material. Acta Odontol Scand. 1986;44:199–205. - PubMed
    1. Bergman B. Evaluation of the results of treatment with osseointegrated implants by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50:114–5. - PubMed
    1. Akdeniz BG, Oksan T, Kovanlikaya I, Genç I. Evaluation of bone height and bone density by computed tomography and panoramic radiography for implant recipient sites. J Oral Implantol. 2000;26:114–9. - PubMed