- Visibility 116 Views
- Downloads 84 Downloads
- Permissions
- DOI 10.18231/j.jds.77535.1759129833
-
CrossMark
Evaluation of crestal bone levels around rough surface basal implants after prosthetic loading in atrophied ridges - A clinico radiographic study
- Author Details:
-
Gaurav Das
-
Rahul Chopra
-
Sumit Malhotra *
-
Akash Alok Bora
-
Raagul Somasundaram
Gaurav Das
Rahul Chopra
Sumit Malhotra *
Background: Dental implant placement is a standard practice in implant dentistry. However, there are situations where traditional implant placement may not be feasible. Basal implantology—also referred to as bicortical, cortical, or strategic implantology—focuses on anchoring dental implants in the cortical regions of the jawbone. These areas are more resistant to bone loss and infections, making the technique a stable and reliable alternative
Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate crestal bone levels around KOS rough surface basal implants after prosthetic loading in atrophied ridges.
Materials and Methods: The Study was conducted in the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, I.T.S. Centre for Dental Studies and Research, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad. The patients visiting the OPD who met the inclusion criteria and willing to give the informed consent were included in the study. A total of 20 rough KOS rough surface basal implants were evaluated in this study. The mean crestal bone levels were assessed at baseline and 6 months using IOPA with grid. Gingival index was measured at baseline and 6 months. VAS score for pain was assessed at baseline, 3rd and 7th day and patient satisfaction was evaluated using Likert scale.
Results: There were insignificant changes in crestal bone levels at 6 months after prosthetic loading as compared to baseline. Gingival index assessed showed no statistically significant difference at 6 months compared to baseline. VAS score for pain showed significant improvement at 3rd day and 7th day compared to baseline. Likert Scale used to assess the patient’s satisfaction level showed no statistical difference between baseline and 6 months.
Conclusion: The current study suggests that basal implants are a good alternative to conventional implants, where bone levels are compromised.
References
- Gupta AD, Verma A, Dubey T, Thakur S. Basal osseointegrated implants: classification and review. Int J Contemp Med Res. 2017;4(11):2329–35 Das et al. / Journal of Dental Specialities 2025;13(2):233-239 239
- Yadav RS, Sangur R, Mahajan T, Rajanikant AV, Singh N, Singh R. An alternative to conventional dental implants: Basal implants. Rama Univ J Dent Sci. 2015;2(2):22–8
- Ghalaut P, Shekhawat H, Meena B. Full-mouth rehabilitation with immediate loading basal implants: A case report. Natl J Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2019;10(1):91–4
- Verma S, Anuradha M, Babaji H, Hiremath N, Usha V, Kumar A, et al.. Assessment of basal implants in compromised ridges. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2020;9(4):2067.
- Anuradha M, Babaji HV, Hiremath NV, Usha VA, Kumar A, Nandkeoliar T, et al. Assessment of basal implants in compromised ridges. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(4):2067–70
- Saad Yousif S, Elmohandes W, Hosny A. Evaluation of basal dental implant placement in basal bone of atrophic alveolar ridge. Al-Azhar J Dent Sci [Internet]. 2022;25(1):71–8
- Mitra GV, Agrawal N, Shukla N, Aishwarya K, Ponnamma CC, Raj A. An Evaluation of the Efficacy and Acceptability of Basal Implants in Traumatically Deficient Ridges of the Maxilla and the Mandible. Cureus. 2023;15(8):e43443.
- Awadalkreem F, Khalifa N, Satti A, Suleiman AM. The Influence of Immediately Loaded Basal Implant Treatment on Patient Satisfaction. Int J Dent. 2020:2020:6590202.
- Ghazal SS, Huynh-Ba G, Aghaloo T, Dibart S, Froum S, O’Neal R, et al. A randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical study evaluating the crestal bone level change of SLActive Bone Level Ø 3.3 vs Ø 4.1 mm implants for single-tooth replacement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(3):708–18.
- Patel K, Madan S, Mehta D, Shah SP, Trivedi V, Seta H, et al. Basal implants: An asset for rehabilitation of atrophied resorbed maxillary and mandibular jaw – a prospective study. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2021;11(1):64–9
- Pandaw KS, Malagi SK, Abraham DV, Tembhurne S, Banerjee S, Mahato A. Comparative analysis of crestal bone levels of basal implants and conventional implants: A clinico radiological study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci [Internet]. 2024;16(Suppl 4):S3655–7.
- Garg R, Mishra N, Alexander M, Gupta SK. Implant survival between endo-osseous immediate-loading, delayed-loading, and basal immediate-loading dental implants: a 3-year follow-up. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2017;7(2):237–44.
- Awadalkreem F, Khalifa N, Ahmad AG, Satti A, Osman M. Rehabilitation of patients with compromised ridge support using immediately loaded corticobasal implant-supported prostheses: a prospective observational study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2022;23(10):971–8.
- Lazarov A. Immediate functional loading: results for the concept of the Strategic Implant®. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2019;9(1):78–88.
- Patel K, Madan S, Mehta D, Shah SP, Trivedi V, Seta H. Basal implants: An asset for rehabilitation of atrophied resorbed maxillary and mandibular jaw - A prospective study. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2021;11(1):64–9.