• The long-term success of the osseointegrated dental implants

is clearly demonstrated in the scientific literature.

• Numerous clinical evidences prove the consistency of the
guidelines, where osseointegration of dental implants can be
achieved and maintained for a long time under functional
loading.
• The macroscopic and microscopic features of the fixtures
have also dramatically changed, due to a series of
modifications aimed at optimizing the mechanical anchorage
as well as the osseointegration process in different clinical
situations.

Gelb D, McAllister B, Nummikoski P, Del Fabbro M. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of Brånemark implants with an anodized
 • The success criteria for osseointegrated implants include retaining
acceptable bone levels during function. It is widely accepted that a
marginal bone loss of approximately 1 mm during the first year after
prosthetic loading and an annual bone loss thereafter not exceeding
0.2 mm is consistent with successful implant treatment.
• This study compared data regarding peri-implant MBLCs for available
implant systems during 1 year of function. The accepted bone loss
success criterion may need to be re-evaluated in light of the data
presented in this study pertaining to bone levels around modern
implant designs.

Byrne G. Peri-implant marginal bone loss is minimal after 5 years of function. The Journal of the American Dental Association.
2015 Jan 1;146(1):68-9.
• The aim of this study was to
assess radiographic outcomes
of dental implants of different
manufacturer after 1 year of
functional loading.
• Single implants and 2 implants with splinted fixed prosthesis placed in
posterior region were selected for study.
• Implants were divided into two groups:
• Group 1 : implants of dentium company (12 patients, 22implants)
• Group 2 : implants of osstem company (5 patients, 15 implants)
 Patient selection criteria
Inclusion Criteria
• Patients with overall good health without any major medical history.
• Good oral hygiene.
• Cases requiring DELAYED LOADING implant placement.
• Absence of active infection around the surgical site.
• Presence of natural teeth adjacent to the implant site.
• Adequate bone tissue to ensure implant primary stability.
• Presence of keratinized tissue ≥ 2 mm.
• Absence of parafunctional habits (bruxism, clenching).
Exclusion criteria
• Advanced surgery including sinus lift, bone augmentation, and
immediate implant placement and loading
• diabetes mellitus or bone metabolic disease, smoking
• head or neck radiotherapy, parafunctions (e.g., bruxism)
• a past or current administration of intravenous bisphosphonates
• poor oral hygiene and motivation.
 Radiographic evaluation

• Study / radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels was done

after prosthetic loading of implant. Radiographs were taken at the
following intervals:
• At time of prosthetic loading(baseline)
• 3 months
• 6 months
• 1 year
• Intraoral periapical radiograph were
taken by paralleling technique using
Rinn XCP (extension cone paralleling)
device along with lead grid(1mm
calibration).

• Patients bite were recorded with Putty

index to standardize the paralleling
technique. Subsequent radiographs
were taken using these putty index at
follow up intervals.
• Each radiograph was converted into digital image.
• Each image of radiograph was corrected for distortion and image
magnification to match the true dimensions of the implant.
• Once images were calibrated, the bone levels were measured on the
mesial and distal sides of each implant from the implant shoulder as
reference point to the first coronal bone-to-implant contact.
• The image calibrations and measurements were performed using
adobe photoshop CS3 software.
Results
 Statistical analysis

Follow up Group 1 Group2 t P value

interval (dentium) (osstem)
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
Baseline- 0.17 ± 0.16 0.1 ± 0.08 0.0360 0.073
mesial
3 month mesial 0.2 ± 0.17 0.1 ± 0.08 0.0286 <0.029
6 month mesial 0.21 ± 0.20 0.1 ± 0.08 0.0312 <0.031
1 year mesial 0.21 ± 0.20 0.1 ± 0.08 0.0312 <0.031
Baseline- distal 0.16 ± 0.24 0.05 ± 0.07 0.0638 <0.051
3 month distal 0.18 ± 0.25 0.05 ± 0.07 0.0373 <0.029
6 month distal 0.20 ± 0.34 0.05 ± 0.07 0.590 0.050
1 year distal 0.20 ± 0.34 0.05 ± 0.07 0.090 0.050

P values < .05 were regarded as statistically significant.

  The obvious consequence of the increasing
number of implant manufacturers is that the
clinical and scientific community will have
difficulties assessing and evaluating different
systems.
 However, many of the new manufacturers are
marketing their products on the basis of cost
effectiveness, rather than innovation aimed at
achieving superior clinical outcomes.
 Here in this study , we compared bone loss
between implant of two different manufacturers.
Szpak P, Szymanska J. The relationship between marginal bone loss around dental implants and the specific characteristics of implan
prosthetic treatment. Current Issues in Pharmacy and Medical Sciences. 2018 Jun 1;31(2):97-100.
• Group 1 shows more bone loss mesially compared to group 2
after 3month to 1year follow up visit.
• At distal site bone loss is less in both groups and are
comparable to each other.
• It favours that the implant design, surface treatment, alloy of
group 2 are superior than group1.
• Moreover it shows that bone levels are adequately maintained
in group2 implants.
 Within the limitations of this study following
conclusions can be drawn:
 During the prosthetic loading phase, bone
levels are equally maintained in both the
group.
 After functional loading at further recall visits
when bone loss values are compared then
group 2 shows less bone loss compared to
group 1 and it is statistically significant.