Radiographic and clinical evaluation of single tooth Osseo-Lok and Laser-Lok surfaced implants by taking the criteria of control teeth

The purpose of this thesis was clinical and radiographic evaluation of Laser-lok andOsseo-lok surfaced Biolok implants (SilhoutteTM Biolok Implant) that used for single-toothreplacement and crone restoration follow up; both groups peri-implanter and healthy controlteeth?s periodontal areas Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI) and Probing Depth (PD), andperi-implanter areas Marginal Bone Loss (MBL) level measurements.Our research based on implants for single tooth replacement application of 30 patients(12 female and 18 male) from the Dicle University Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryDepartment. Their age average was 31.46 and half of the 30 patients treated with Laser-Loksurfaced Biolok implants and other half treated with Osseo-Lok surfaced Biolok implants.During this period none of them treated implants (15 Lazer-lok surfaced Biolok implants, 15Osseo-lok implants) have had any loss (%100, 30/30). With the completion ofosseoentegration after implant practices and completed crone restoration during beginningperiods, 1st month, 3rd month, 6th month, 12th month and 24th months PI, GI and CD, andduring 3rd month, 6th month, 12th month and 24th months peri-implanter MBL levelmeasurements values were recorded. Each individual probing depth measurements taken byusing Williams period probe. Marginal Bone Loss level were measured with Meazure 2.0programı ( C Thing Software, Version: 2.0 Build:158 Copyright 2001-2004) fromstandardized panoramic radiographs. Index measurements were taken in each tooth?s 6 points,distobuccal, buccal, mesiobuccal, distolingual, lingual, meziolingual milimetric values wereused for CD and MBL. The values gained were analysed statistically with ANOVA test.According to results gained from Laser-Lok? surfaced implants the Marginal Bone Losswere at lover level compared to the Osseo- Lok? surfaced implants and differences viewedas significant statistically (p<0,05).The PI,GI index and probing depths levels values evaluation showed that statisticallysignificant between the Laser-Lok? surfaced implants and Osseo- Lok? surfaced implantsand with control teeth?s index (p<0,05).The PI and GI index values evaluation showed that there was no statisticallysignification between the just Laser-Lok? surfaced implants and Osseo- Lok? surfacedimplants with no control teeth. When the Laser-Lok? surfaced implants and Osseo- Lok?surfaced implants probing depths levels viewed at 24. months, the differences has been foundsignificant statistically (p<0,05).The results gained from 2 years of study shows that both groups were functioning andpatients had provision to normal contour, comfort, aesthetic and speech. When bone losslevels examined within the crestal bone levels, Laser- Lok? supported Biolok implant groupsLaser roughened neck parts were hard and soft which provided tissue attachment, thus themarginal bone loss level were moving along at low levels. Again due to formation of Laser-Lok surfaced Biolok implant gingival attachment, probing depth levels were lower than thoseOsseo- Lok? surfaced Biolok implant groups. In this respect evaluation of the Laser- Lok?surfaced Biolok implant in single tooth cases are found more successful. In statisticalexamination the differences of PI and GI values between groups it has not been foundsignificant.Keywords; Marginal Bone Loss, Probing Depth, Plaque Index, Gingiva Index, OsseolokBiolok Implant, Laser-Lok Biolok Implant.