The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Pre- and Post-loading Peri-implant Crestal Bone Levels Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: An In Vivo Study

Aparna Trivedi, Shivangi Trivedi, Harshita Narang, Piyali Sarkar, Bhumika Sehdev, Gowri Pendyala, Parwan Gill

Keywords : Cone-beam computed tomography, Crestal bone, Dental implant, Marginal bone loss

Citation Information : Trivedi A, Trivedi S, Narang H, Sarkar P, Sehdev B, Pendyala G, Gill P. Evaluation of Pre- and Post-loading Peri-implant Crestal Bone Levels Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (1):79-82.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3245

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 21-05-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: To evaluate the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal crestal bone around implant using CBCT analysis having buccal crestal bone width of 1 mm after placement of implant and after 3 months of loading. Materials and methods: Twenty-five patients between 18 and 60 years of age with adequate bone width and height were selected for this in-vivo study with single or multiple missing teeth. Surgical stent was fabricated for all of them by using self-cure acrylic resin for selection of implant according to the availability of bone, and gutta-percha was used as radio-opaque marker to locate the implant site. After proper analysis, in the first stage surgery, implants were placed. After 3 months to this, the second stage surgery was performed followed by elastomeric impression for porcelain fused to metal prosthesis fabrication. The buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal bone width and height were evaluated by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). CBCT was standardized in terms of FOV (field of vision), slice thickness, and interval. After 3 months of loading, CBCT was taken to evaluate the alteration in the crestal bone around implants. Pre- and post-loading, crestal bone on four locations was measured by using CBCT software. Results: There is significant bone loss at all the locations, buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal, at the time of placement and after 3 months of loading of implant (p <0.05). The mean difference of 0.840, 0.933, 0.840, and 0.380 at buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal locations, respectively, shows statistically significant difference in pre- and post-values of mean bone loss at buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal positions. Pre-loading bone loss was maximum in the distal surface, while post-loading bone loss was maximum in the buccal surface. Conclusion: From this study, it is concluded that although crestal bone loss was higher before implant placement, there was significant alteration in crestal bone even after loading of implant. Clinical significance: It is widely accepted that the bone loss around the implant crest module is multidisciplinary in nature. Long-term preservation of the crestal bone is a paramount for successfully functioning of dental implants. Preserving crestal bone will help in dissipating the functional load. With proper treatment planning by the practitioner, this technical contribution to the crestal bone loss can be minimized and long-term survival of dental implants can be achieved.

  1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, et al. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10(6):387–416. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4.
  2. Yi JM, Lee JK, Um HS, et al. Marginal bony changes in relation to different vertical positions of dental implants. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2010;40(5):244–248. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2010.40.5.244.
  3. Delbalso AM, Greiner FG, Licata M. Role of diagnostic imaging in evaluation of the dental implant patient. Radiographics 1994;14(4):699–719. DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.14.4.7938761.
  4. Mayordomo BR, Martínez GR, Alfaro HF. Volumetric CBCT analysis of the palatine process of the anterior maxilla: a potential source for bone grafts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42(3):406–410. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.09.002.
  5. Jung Y, Han C, Lee KW. A 1-year radiographic evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11(6):811–818. PMID: 8990646.
  6. Piao CM, Lee JE, Koak JY, et al. Marginal bone loss around three different implant systems: radiographic evaluation after 1 year. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36(10):748–754. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01988.x.
  7. Annibali S, Bignozzi I, Cristalli MP, et al. Peri-implant marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants. J Clin Periodontal 2012;39(11):1097–1113. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01930.x.
  8. Ma S, Smith AT, Thomson WM, et al. Marginal bone loss with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different loading protocols and attachment systems: 10-year outcomes. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23(4):321–332. PMID: 20617220.
  9. Bryant SR, Zarb GA. Crestal bone loss proximal to oral implants in older and younger adults. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(6):589–597. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00199-9.
  10. Nitzan D, Mamlider A, Levin L, et al. Impact of smoking on marginal bone loss. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20(4):605–609. PMID: 16161745.
  11. Misch CE, Suzuki JB, Misch-Dietsh FM, et al. A positive correlation between occlusal trauma and peri-implant bone loss: literature support. Implant dentistry 2005;14(2):108–116. DOI: 10.1097/
  12. Hanggi MP, Hanggi DC, Schoolfield JD, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. Part I: A retrospective radiographic evaluation in humans comparing two non-submerged implant designs with different machined collar length. J Periodontol 2005;76(5):791–802. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.5.791.
  13. Maroush MAE, Benhamida SA, Elgendy AA, et al. Residual ridge resorption, the effect on prosthodontics management of edentulous patient: an article review. International Journal of Science and Research Methodology 2019;7(9):260–267. DOI: 10.18535/ijsrm/v7i9.mp04.
  14. Koller CD, Cenci TP, Boscato N. Parameters associated with marginal bone loss around implant after prosthetic loading. Braz Dent J 2016;27(3):292–297. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201600874.
  15. Ahmed KM, Elfatah SA, Katamish MAE. Crestal bone loss of standard implant versus platform switch implant design using minimal invasive technique. Future Dent J 2016;2(2):74–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.fdj.2016.09.001.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.