MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHETICS
Online ISSN : 2435-0389
Print ISSN : 0389-4045
Panoramic radiographic analysis of marginal bone around osseointegrated implants placed in residual or grafted bone in patients with resected mandibles
Yuki UCHIDAKoichiro IHARAYoshio YAMASHITAMasahito SHIGEMATSUMitsuhiro TSUJIMasaaki GOTO
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

2006 Volume 29 Issue 2 Pages 60-68

Details
Abstract
The authors compared the marginal bone loss (MBL) of 56 osseointegrated implants (implants) placed in residual or grafted bone following mandibular resection in 20 patients: a residual bone group (RBG) consisting of 7 patients and 17 implants; a corticocancellous iliac bone block group (CBBG) consisting of 7 and 21; and a particulated cancellous iliac bone and marrow group (PCBMG) consisting of 7 and 18. (One patient is counted twice.)
Panoramic radiographs were taken at implant placement (t 1), prosthetic loading (t 2), and final follow-up (t 3). The implant lengths (P 0) and the distances from the alveolar crest to the apex of the implant at the mesial and distal sides of the implant neck were measured. MBL represented the means of differences for corrected distances (using the P 0) at the two sides for pre-loading (t 2-t 1) and post-loading (t 3-t 2). Paired t-tests were used to determine intra-group differences. and ANOVA for inter-groups.
The following results were obtained :
RBG (t 2-t 1): 0.4 mm (mean) with 2.3 (SD); RBG (t 3-t 2): 1.6 mm with 1.4; CBBG (t 2-t 1): 0.1 mm with 1.7; CBBG (t 3-t 2) :1.4 mm with 1.4; PCBMG (t 2-t 1):0.6 mm with 2.0; PCBMG (t 3-t 2): 0.9 mm with 1.9. No significance (p>0.05) existed between t 2-t 1 and t 3-t 2 (intra-group except CBBG (P=0.02)), nor for t 2-t 1 or t 3-t 2 (inter-group) (p>0.05). This study revealed no difference in resorption between residual and grafted bone.
Content from these authors
© 2006 Japanese Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics
Previous article Next article
feedback
Top