Online ISSN: 2515-8260

Keywords : Dental Implant


Dr. Shallu Bansal; Dr. Narendra Reddy Chittamuru; Dr. Siva Kumar Pendyala; Dr. K. Krishna Lohitha; Prof. Dr.Appadurai. R; Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim; Dr. Rahul VC Tiwari

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2020, Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages 3062-3071

Introduction: Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have assessed the effectiveness of lifting the maxillary sinuses. Our study did additional research, in which it was witnessed that bone neoformation and implant osseointegration after sinus lifting with/ without grafting material was possible. In the current study we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the maxillary sinus lift up and implant placement.
Methodology: An electronic search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, till 2020. We considered prospective and retrospective cohort studies, controlled clinical trials, and randomized clinical trials. The search and selection process yielded 18 studies, published between 2005 and 2020. A meta- analysis was conducted only for experimental studies comparing sinus floor elevation with and without grafting material; results were expressed as the standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI).

Evaluation of dental implants failures in smokers and healthy subjects

Dr. Padam Singh; Dr. Sharv Ahuja; Dr. Deepti Gattani; Dr. Shivani Sharma; Dr. Pavan Shrimant Dorkar; Dr. Himanshu Sharma

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2020, Volume 7, Issue 11, Pages 6406-6411

Introduction: The ill effects of tobacco on human health have been well demonstrated yet tobacco continues to find a very special place in the present day to day life probably because of the stimulant effects of nicotine.5, The present study was conducted to assess failure rate of dental implant in smokers and healthy subjects. Materials & methods: 54 smokers (group I) and equal number of healthy subjects (group II) who received dental implant in last 5 years of both genders were recruited. Amount of bone loss around the implant over 1mm of bone loss in the first year and over 0.3 mm bone loss every subsequent year were considered as failures. Results: Group I consisted of 68 patients (smokers) with 76 dental implants. Group II consisted of 54 patients (healthy subjects) with 78 implants. In group I, there were 16 and in group II, there were 3 dental implant failures. At first year, in group I, mean bone loss around implant was 1.21 mm and 0.5 mm in group II. Upto 5 years, in group I, mean bone loss around implant was 2.7 mm and 1.4 mm in group II. The difference was significant p< 0.05).Conclusion: Smokers had higher dental implant failure rates as compared to healthy subjects.

Impact of Bruxism on Dental Implant: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

Dr Aishwarya Kadu; Dr Vikram V Khare; Dr. Tazeen Dawood; Dr. Nikhil Abbad; Dr. Savitri Ranjeri; Mohamed Fadul A. Elagib

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2020, Volume 7, Issue 11, Pages 6498-6508

Background: Bruxism was generally deliberated as a contraindication for oral implanting. The fundamental relationship amid bruxism and dental implant failure has remained debatable in current literatures

Assessment Of Dental Implant Thread Design On Marginal Bone Loss Running Title: Dental Implant Thread Design

Dr.Chetan Sugandhi; Dr. Imran Khalid; Dr. Leena; Dr.Anupa Shetty; Dr.Sagar Sewane

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2020, Volume 7, Issue 8, Pages 1156-1161

Background:Dental implant design determines the implant success. The present study was conducted to assess dental implant thread design on marginal bone loss.
Materials & Methods:This study was conducted on 104 dental implants. They were divided into 2 groups. Group I patients received spiral implants and group II patients received dual fit implants. Each group had 52 dental implants. Patients were recalled after 6 months to see marginal bone loss.
RESULTS: The mean marginal bone loss in group I was 2.04 mm and in group II was 2.26 mm. The difference was significant (P< 0.05). The mean survival rate in group I was 96.2% and in group II was 95.1%.
CONCLUSION:Spiral implants had less bone loss and higher survival rate as compared to dual fit implants.