A randomized controlled trial for evaluation of bone density changes around immediate functionally and nonfunctionally loaded implants using three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare and assess bone density changes around immediate functionally and nonfunctionally loaded implants.Settings and design: In vivo comparative study Materials and Methods: Sixty participants selected based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria received single tooth implants in mandible under two implant loading protocols: Immediate functionally loaded (IFL) and immediate nonfunctionally loaded (INFL). Randomization was done by computer-aided simple randomization procedure. Self-tapering, aggressive SLA implants were placed in the single tooth edentulous sites of mandible in both the groups. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography (3D CBCT) was taken at baseline, 3 and 6 months postimplant placement. Quantitative analysis of the bone density was performed using 3D CBCT in three areas around the implants at crestal, middle, and apical regions of implants.Statistical Analysis Used: Quantitative data were summarized as mean & PLUSMN; standard deviation. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software version 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) by unpaired t-test.Results: Bone density changes after implant placement in IFL group from baseline to 3 months were; crestal region (314.18 & PLUSMN; 71.69), middle (278.23 & PLUSMN; 70.17), apical (274.70 & PLUSMN; 59.79) and changes from 3 to 6 months were; crestal (-105.55 & PLUSMN; 39.60), middle (-114.80 & PLUSMN; 41.46), apical (-141.88 & PLUSMN; 69.58). Bone density changes after implant placement in INFL group from baseline to 3 months were crestal region (199.42 & PLUSMN; 47.97), middle (56.91 & PLUSMN; 10.39), apical (200.98 & PLUSMN; 67.43) and changes from 3 to 6 months were; crestal (-194.38 & PLUSMN; 75.30), middle (-204.40 & PLUSMN; 63.75), apical (-191.28 & PLUSMN; 62.33).Conclusions: It was concluded that INFL implant group showed better bone density when compared to IFL implant group.