National journal of maxillofacial surgery · 2026
Efficacy of basal implants in compromised ridge - A prospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mittal Gaurav, Kundu Anjali, Abhilash R
Аннотация
AIM: To clinically, radiographically, and functionally evaluate the outcomes of immediately loaded basal implants in patients with compromised alveolar bone ridges.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten systemically healthy individuals (6 males and 4 females) with poor bone quality and/or quantity were included. A total of 35 basal implants were placed-26 in males and 9 in females. All implants were functionally loaded within 72 hours of placement. Patients were assessed for primary and secondary stability, pain levels, marginal bone loss (via CBCT), suppuration, and neurosensory disturbances at designated intervals: baseline, 3 days, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Data were analyzed using SPSS software and were expressed as mean, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean. Intragroup comparisons at different time points were performed using paired t-tests.
RESULTS: Out of the 35 implants, 3 failed within the first 3 days post-placement. Despite these early failures, the findings suggest that basal implants offer a promising solution for rehabilitating patients with compromised alveolar ridges, particularly in cases where conventional root-form implants would necessitate additional bone augmentation procedures.
CONCLUSION: Dental implants are synthetic devices used as an alternative to traditional prosthetic rehabilitation for toothless areas. Among various implant types, endosseous implants are widely preferred. However, patients with insufficient bone face challenges with endosseous implants, necessitating additional procedures. Basal implants offer a promising alternative that reduces both the cost and duration of treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten systemically healthy individuals (6 males and 4 females) with poor bone quality and/or quantity were included. A total of 35 basal implants were placed-26 in males and 9 in females. All implants were functionally loaded within 72 hours of placement. Patients were assessed for primary and secondary stability, pain levels, marginal bone loss (via CBCT), suppuration, and neurosensory disturbances at designated intervals: baseline, 3 days, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Data were analyzed using SPSS software and were expressed as mean, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean. Intragroup comparisons at different time points were performed using paired t-tests.
RESULTS: Out of the 35 implants, 3 failed within the first 3 days post-placement. Despite these early failures, the findings suggest that basal implants offer a promising solution for rehabilitating patients with compromised alveolar ridges, particularly in cases where conventional root-form implants would necessitate additional bone augmentation procedures.
CONCLUSION: Dental implants are synthetic devices used as an alternative to traditional prosthetic rehabilitation for toothless areas. Among various implant types, endosseous implants are widely preferred. However, patients with insufficient bone face challenges with endosseous implants, necessitating additional procedures. Basal implants offer a promising alternative that reduces both the cost and duration of treatment.