A Retrospective Study On The Clinical Effects Of Different Healing Methods Of Bone Level Implant In The Posterior Teeth Area

Purpose: Assessthe marginal bone loss around submerged and non-submerged dental implants,which can provide a reference basis to improve the clinical effect and long-term success when use the implant in clinic work.Methods:There are 159(submerged 47 and non-submerged 112)implants of Ankylos implant was implanted in 159 patients.Follow-up 24 months,in implants insertion instantly,stage II surgery instantly(non-submerged healing in the corresponding time point),crown repair immediately,crown restoration after 6months,12 months,24months to visit,take Digital panoramic X-ray examination and Measure the marginal bone loss around the implant and the stability of the surrounding bone level.The measurement results were statistically analyzed with SPSS20.0.Results:Among the collected patients,the most patients were younger than 55,and from all the cases,women were slightly more than men.The non-submerged healing group of patients with a history of periodontal disease in 45 cases(40.2%),and submerged healing group of patients with a history of periodontal disease in 31cases(65.9%),according to the ratio of submerged healing group of patients with a history of periodontal disease is higher than in the non-submerged healing group;There were 70 cases(44.0%)of the maxilla and 89 cases(56.0%)of the mandible in the implant site.The success rate of the non-submerged healing group was 98.21%,submerged healing group was97.87%.During non-load healing,the marginal bone loss of submerged healing group was 0.43±0.07 mm,and the non-submerged group healing was 0.42 ±0.08 mm,the difference was not statistically significant.There was a significant difference between the non-submerged healing and submerged healing in the marginal bone loss after Crown Restoration?Function load 2years later,the submerged healing group has 28.7%(27)stability in implant marginal bone level or above,the non-submerged healing group has 69.7%(156),comparing differences between two groups have statistically significant(P < 0.05).Conclusion:The two kinds of healing methods have different effects on the marginal bone loss around the implant,but they all have a good clinical effect.