Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants Restored with Zirconium vis-à-vis Porcelain Fused to Metal: An In Vivo StudyFunding None.
Introduction Marginal bone level is the criterion for implant success. Patient expectations for more natural looking implant restorations created the need to restore implants with more esthetically pleasing materials like Zirconia rather than conventional porcelain-fused to-metal (PFM) crowns. The aim of this study was to evaluate marginal bone loss around dental implants clinically and radiographically when restored with Zirconia and PFM prosthesis.
Materials and Methods Two groups (control and test) were formed with 14 patients each. In the control group, the subjects were rehabilitated with PFM crowns and in the test group, the subjects were rehabilitated with Zirconia crowns. Rehabilitation was done after the healing period of 3 months. Radiographic evaluation was done at regular (baseline, 3rd, 6th, and 12th month) intervals.
Results The results were statistically analyzed. Keeping in mind the limitations of the study, it was revealed that the difference in the crestal bone resorption in both the groups was not significant.
Keywordsdental implant - fixed partial dentures - marginal bone loss - radiographic evaluation - superstructure materials
02 April 2020 (online)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India
- 1 Singh P, Garge HG, Parmar VS, Viswambaran M, Goswami MM. Evaluation of implant stability and crestal bone loss around the implant prior to prosthetic loading: A six month Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2006; 6 (01) 33-37
- 2 Carl E Misch. Rationale for Dental Implants. Contemporary Implant Dentistry 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania: Elsevier Mosby; 2005: 197-205
- 3 Sheikh MA, Shafiq S, Mehdi A, Riaz M. Success & evaluation of dental implant patients at Islamic International Dental College & Hospital. Pak Oral Dent J 2012; 32 (01) 10-15
- 4 Zinsli B, Sägesser T, Mericske E, Mericske-Stern R. Clinical evaluation of small-diameter ITI implants: a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19 (01) 92-99
- 5 Jang J-B, Pena LM, Eskow R, Elian N, Cho S-C. The Effect of Implant Design on Crestal Bone Levels. Presented at: 23rd Annual Meeting of Academy of Osseointegration, Boston. 2008: 221-234
- 6 Cappiello M, Luongo R, Di DIorio, Bugea C, Cocchetto R, Celletti R. Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008; 28 (04) 347-355
- 7 Vacek JS, Gher ME, Assad DA, Richardson AC, Giambarresi LI. The dimensions of the human dentogingival junction. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994; 14 (02) 154-165
- 8 Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, Schoolfield JD, Cochran DL. Biologic width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12 (06) 559-571
- 9 Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B, Östman PO, Sennerby L. Initial and long-term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73 (01) 41-50
- 10 Türk AG, Ulusoy M, Toksavul S, Güneri P, Koca H. Marginal bone loss of two implant systems with three different superstructure materials: a randomised clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil 2013; 40 (06) 457-463
- 11 Sinem S, Deger O, Bulent S. Effects of surface treatments and repeated firings on bond strength of zirconia and veneer ceramics. Int J Educ Res (Dhaka) 2016; 4 (03) 101-114
- 12 Fernández-Formoso N, Rilo B, Mora MJ, Martínez-Silva I, Díaz-Afonso AM. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone maintenance around tissue level implant and bone level implant: a randomised controlled trial. A 1-year follow-up. J Oral Rehabil 2012; 39 (11) 830-837
- 13 Job S, Bhat V, Naidu EM. In vivo evaluation of crestal bone heights following implant placement with ‘flapless’ and ‘with-flap’ techniques in sites of immediately loaded implants. Indian J Dent Res 2008; 19 (04) 320-325
- 14 Chugh A, Nandal S. Original research radiological evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants: A pilot study. Eur J Prosthodont 2014; 2 (02) 58-61
- 15 Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL. et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008; 17 (01) 5-15
- 16 Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N. et al. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96 (04) 237-244
- 17 Meric G, Erkmen E, Kurt A, Eser A. Influence of Prostheses type and materials on Stress Distribution in Bone Around Implants: A 3D FEA Analysis. J Dent Sci 2011; 6: 25-30
- 18 Gomes ÉA, Barão VA, Rocha EP, de Almeida ÉO, Assunção WG. Effect of metal-ceramic or all-ceramic superstructure materials on stress distribution in a single implant-supported prosthesis: three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26 (06) 1202-1209
- 19 Soliman T, Tamam R, Yousief S. Assessment of stress distribution around Implant fixture with 3 different crown materials. Tanta Dental Journal 2015; 12: 249-258