Atormac
Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
 
 
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE - COMPARATIVE STUDY
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 237-244

Implant survival between endo-osseous dental implants in immediate loading, delayed loading, and basal immediate loading dental implants a 3-year follow-up


1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute of Dental Studies and Technology, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Endodontics and Conservative Dentistry, DJ College of Dental Science an Studies, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, MAHSA University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Saraswati Medical College, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Ritesh Garg
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, IDST College of Dental Science, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/ams.ams_87_17

PMID: 29264292

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: With introduction of the term “ossteointegration of dental implant” by Branemark, advancement in implantology from 1957 to 2017 has come a long way with modification in implant type and in loading time. This study aims to evaluate the survival of endo-osseous immediate loading (IL) implant and basal IL implants in atrophic jaws with objective to compare implant survival in atrophic jaws for full mouth rehabilitation between endo-osseous IL versus endo-osseous delayed loading (DL) versus basal IL during 3-year follow-up. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two (34 endo-osseous and 18 basal) implants were placed in 4 patients requiring full mouth rehabilitation in atrophic jaws. Case 1: Endo-osseous DL implants in upper and lower arch, Case 2: Endo-osseous IL implants in upper and lower arch, Case 3: Basal IL implant in upper and lower arch, and Case 4: Endo-osseous DL in upper arch and basal IL implant in the lower arch. Intraoperative evaluation was done on the basis of pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), operative time, and initial primary implant stability. Postoperative evaluation was done on pain (VAS), infection, radiographically successful implant (orthopantomogram), and patient satisfaction (Grade 0– 10). Results: All cases showed satisfactory results but more amount of intra- and post-operative pain was felt with immediate basal implants. Conclusion: We believe that clinicians should comply with patient requests, and for this reason, we agree with some authors to use minimally invasive techniques and to avoid when possible esthetic or functional problems associated with the use of removable prosthesis after teeth extractions.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3266    
    Printed72    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded535    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal