ABSTRACT
AIM: In the less dense bone, it is difficult to obtain implant anchorage. The present study was undertaken to determine the survival rate of Maestro™ implants placed in d3 and d4 bones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients (10 males and 4 females) were selected for the study and implants were evaluated for posttreatment changes in at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months from implant placement. The implant probing depth and mobility were recorded 3 and 6 months after prosthesis placement. Also, peri-implant bone level was assessed at the baseline and 12 months postoperatively, followed by a statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean plaque and gingival indices showed a reduction at repeated intervals. The mean sulcular bleeding showed a slight reduction which was statistically significant. An overall mean bone loss was observed after 12 months follow-up, which was statistically not significant. The overall survival rate of implants was reported as 92.3%. CONCLUSION: The specific implant used in the study is advantageous in the soft bone condition. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although, there is a great evidence of implant failure in compromised jaw quality, the newer designs and approaches suggest that the poor quality is not a contraindication.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Traumatic injuries caused to anterior teeth are most common. Emergency management of fractured fragments is necessary, for preserving their vitalities and for retaining aesthetics in an economical way. Various methods are available for restoring fractured, uncomplicated teeth, such as reattachment of fractured fragments, composite restoration. But only limited data is available on evaluation of the strength of reattached fractured fragments. Hence, the present study was designed. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the fracture strength recovery of re-attached anterior fractured tooth fragment by using different re-attachment techniques. METHODOLOGY: Forty human upper central incisions were used in this study. The roots of the teeth were confined in a special device (holder) and adapted in a Universal Testing Machine. Load was applied to each tooth in bucco-lingual direction, by using a small stainless steel ball. The force which was required to fracture the tooth was recorded. Both the fragment and remaining fractured tooth was restored by using four reattachment techniques - simple reattachment, external chamfer, over contour and internal dentinal groove. Specimens were loaded in same pre-determined area which was used in procedure to obtain fragments. The force required to detach each fragment was recorded and it was correlated with the fracture strength of an intact tooth and that which was obtained after doing restorative procedures for all groups i.e. fracture strength recovery. RESULTS: Technique I (simple reattachment) and Technique 2 (external chamfer) showed fracture strength recoveries of 44.3% and 60.6% respectively. However, these values were lower than those which were obtained by usingTechnique 3 (Over contour) -86.8% and Technique 4 (internal dentinal groove) -89.5%. CONCLUSION: Over contour and internal dentinal groove reattachment is a preferred technique as compared to the other reattachment techniques which were tested.