الفهرس 
List of contentOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 126 |  |  |
| | | from | 126 | | |
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact of local application of alendronate gel 1% on immediately loaded Dental Implants. Materials and Methods: Sixteen cases seeking placement of at least one single dental implant in the posterior mandibular area were selected for the study, all cases were examined clinically and radiographically using CBCT preoperatively to assess compatibility with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Cases were randomly divided into two equal groups each of eight cases, all cases included in the study were examined clinically and the recipient sites were radiographed by CBCT preoperatively. group I (study group): where Alendronate gel was applied to the osteotomy site just before implant placement. group II (control group): where no bioactive agents were applied during implant placement. All implants were loaded immediately. All cases were evaluated as follows : Clinically where implant stability using Osstell device, peri-implant probing depth and sulcus bleeding index were evaluated immediately postoperative (T0), after three months (T3) and after 6 months (T6) and radiographically for marginal bone loss using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) after 3 and 6 months follow up period. Statistical analysis of the required data was applied. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding implant stability at (T3) (p=0.004*) and at (T6) (p=0.006*), as well as regarding amounts of marginal bone loss at (T6) (p=0.029*). On the other hand, there was no statistically significant difference regarding modified sulcus bleeding Index (T0), (T3), and (T6) (P=1.000, 0.779 and 0.955 respectively) or peri-implant probing depth (T0), (T3), and (T6) (P=0.878, 0.463 and 0.054 respectively). Conclusion : Within the limitation of this clinical study, Local application of Alendronate gel 1% around immediately loaded implants in posterior mandibular area proved to be valuable, reducing bone resorption around the implant which eventually resulted in higher implant stability and less amounts of marginal bone loss, however, it was of no impact regarding peri-implant soft tissue healing.