الفهرس 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 144 |  |  |
| | | from | 144 | | |
Abstract
The objective of the study was to compare early bone healing between two commercially available implants one with a nanotopographical surface and one with a conventionally treated surface in the upper anterior region of the oral cavity using cone beam CT. This study was conducted on seven patients (three females and four males) selected from outpatient clinic of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Departments, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University. Each had two missing maxillary anterior teeth bilaterally. Their ages ranged from 20-50 years old with a mean age of 33 years old.
Fourteen Implants in this study were placed using the delayed two stage submerged protocol.
Patient’s evaluation
All Cases were evaluated for:
• Pain on the 2nd day postoperatively and after 45 day postoperatively.
• Implant mobility at 4 months postoperatively.
• Radiographic evaluation after 4 & 6 weeks postoperatively to assess bone density around the implant and marginal bone height.
Clinical and Radiographic results
• Clinical results revealed average pain among all patients that subsided completely after the 2nd and 3rd day post-operatively.
• None of the patient were presented with infection.
• None of the patient were presented with clinical implant mobility.
• None of the patients were presented with wound dehiscence.
CBCT was taken immediately post-operatively, after four and six weeks respectively to evaluate bone density around the implants and marginal bone heights at the early stages of osseointegration.
The difference between bone density between the control and study groups was evaluated by measuring values around each implant immediately, four and six weeks post-operatively using dedicated software OnDemand3D Software. (125)
Statistical analysis showed a significant difference in bone density at four and six weeks postoperatively as opposed to preoperative results in the study group (Micro+Nano) as opposed to the control group (Ospol).