Scholarlink

Aim <p>The aim of the present study is to compare the marginal bone level changes and implant survival rate between immediately loaded non-submerged versus delayed loaded submerged dental implants.</p> Materials and Methods <p>The implant sites of 20 patients were divided into two groups-Group A (implant placement was done by immediate loading protocol) and Group B patients (implant placement was done by conventional delayed loading protocol). Clinical parameters that were recorded include implant stability, radiographic assessment for crestal bone changes, gingival status, probing depth, and complications. The data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA, <i>t</i> test, and chi-square test (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05).</p> Results <p>On intergroup comparison, gingival status was more maintained in the case of the immediate loading group, while there was no statistically significant difference in implant stability and marginal bone loss. Complications were reported in both groups but were statistically insignificant in comparison between groups.</p> Conclusion <p>Immediate loading is a viable treatment modality and can lead to satisfactory clinical and aesthetic outcomes. The provision of an immediate restoration may lead to improved aesthetic outcomes as evidenced by gingival status evaluation when compared to delayed loading.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Evaluation of Clinical and Radiographic Changes Between Immediate Loading Versus Delayed Loading of Dental Implants

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月14日

查看全文
  • Amanjyot Kaur Bains,
  • Amit Dhawan,
  • Tejinder Kaur Gumber,
  • Ramandeep Singh Bhullar,
  • Sarika Kapila

摘要

Aim

The aim of the present study is to compare the marginal bone level changes and implant survival rate between immediately loaded non-submerged versus delayed loaded submerged dental implants.

Materials and Methods

The implant sites of 20 patients were divided into two groups-Group A (implant placement was done by immediate loading protocol) and Group B patients (implant placement was done by conventional delayed loading protocol). Clinical parameters that were recorded include implant stability, radiographic assessment for crestal bone changes, gingival status, probing depth, and complications. The data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA, t test, and chi-square test (p < 0.05).

Results

On intergroup comparison, gingival status was more maintained in the case of the immediate loading group, while there was no statistically significant difference in implant stability and marginal bone loss. Complications were reported in both groups but were statistically insignificant in comparison between groups.

Conclusion

Immediate loading is a viable treatment modality and can lead to satisfactory clinical and aesthetic outcomes. The provision of an immediate restoration may lead to improved aesthetic outcomes as evidenced by gingival status evaluation when compared to delayed loading.