An appraisal of bone resorption in completely edentulous diabetic and nondiabetic patients at prospective implant site in anterior mandible using digital volumetric tomography and its correlation with glycemic control: A case–control study

Abstract

Purpose: The prospective case–control study aimed at comparing bone resorption at prospective implant sites in anterior mandible between diabetic and nondiabetic patients using digital volumetric tomography (DVT) and establishes a correlation between glycemic control and residual ridge resorption. Materials and Methods: Twenty apparently healthy and 20 type 2 diabetic edentulous male patients between the age group of 55–65 years providing with written consent were recruited in the present study. First-time denture wearers were considered who were edentulous for at least 1 year. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) analysis of all individuals were done to affirm the diagnosis and quantify glycemic control. DVT of all the individuals were performed and bone height was determined at 5 prospective implant sites were determined, on the same scans Wical and Swoope method was used to determine the residual ridge resorption on the right and left side of mandible for all the individuals. The data wer tabulated and descriptive and analytical statistics were performed to compare bone resorption between diabetic and nondiabetic groups. Pearson's correlation was carried out to establish correlation between glycemic control and residual ridge resorption. Results: There was no statistical difference between the bone height measurements at prospective implant sites between diabetic and nondiabetic groups. The residual ridge resorption was more in diabetics when compared to nondiabetics, and a significant moderate negative correlation existed between the glycemic control and residual ridge resorption on left (r = −0.541; P ≤ 0.001) and right (r = −0.408; P = 0.009) side of the mandible. Conclusion: It can be concluded from the present study that bone resorption at prospective implant sites is statistically similar in diabetics when compared to nondiabetics. Patients with poor glycemic control show increased residual ridge resorption.

A Method for Detecting Bone Density at Different Sides and Five Sites of Mandibular Bone by New Computerized Measurements

“…Mistry et al (10) , concluded that patients with low glycemic control will have excessive residual ridge resorption and also bone resorption at the implant insertion sites is statistically similar in diabetics when compared to nondiabetics. Yoon et al (11) , concluded that preoperative imaging is imperative to the success of implant prosthetic positioning together with a good treatment planning and evaluation of the surgical site, a CBCT scan is a perfect diagnostic tool that can gave important information about the related anatomical and morphological differences in the sites of concern.…”

“…Tadiparthi and Sujatha in 2016 (14) concluded that glycemic control is an effective predetermined factor of bone resorption and so the diabetic patients were found to record higher increase in the alveolar bone resorption related to the right and left premolar region (15) . Methods for assessed bone density clinically such as standard radiography, dualenergy X-ray absorptiometry, digital image analysis, ultrasound, and CT while CT is considered an effective noninvasive system for gain bone images before to dental implant positioning.…”

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Dental Implants among Dental Post Graduates and Practitioners in Wardha District, Maharashtra: A Cross Sectional Study

“…Dentists' knowledge and attitudes concerning a treatment technique can have a substantial impact on treatment decisionmaking and, [8] as a result, "define" how oral health care is delivered and accepted [9,10,11]. As a result, the primary goal of this study was to assess and compare dental implant knowledge, attitude, and practise among postgraduate students (PGs), [12,13]. institution-based practitioners (IBPs), general dental practitioners (GDPs), and institution-based nonpractitioners (IBNPs), as well as to assess the impact of dentists' factors (years of experience, implant training, and specialisation) on the same [14,15,16].…”