|
Changes
in Bone Density around an implant |
 |
 |
| This is a section
of a pre-operative panorex and while it is not the best of radiographs
(it was not taken in my office) you can see that there is some significant
damage in the molar bicuspid area. The teeth were extracted in this region
and I placed some implants. Actually, I placed three implants and one
of them, the most distal, did not integrate. |
When the implant
failed, I replaced it with a second implant, a 10mm IMTEC implant. The
radiograph at the left, a periapicle, shows the implant at second stage.
It was stable, but radiographically, it did not look too good. I really
anticipated that it would also be a failure. |
 |
 |
| Since the implant
was stable, I decided to do a provisional restoration and see what happens.
I felt that I had nothing to loose... The radiograph at the left, a section
of a panorex taken at 4 months after the provisional restoration was placed,
shows the distal implant with questionable bone density around it.... |
Here is the one
year post provisional radiograph showing considerable bone density around
the implant. At this point, my impression is that this implant is totally
integrated and I can proceed with the final restoration. And, yes, I know
that the angulation is not great, but I tend to tip my implants forward
as I end up in the posterior region and I guess I did over do it a bit,
but it seems like it is working just fine.... |
 |
These
last two radiographs are merely the previous two radiographs inverted
to give a better idea of the boney changes. The one year loaded radiograph
looks considerably better than the original second stage |
 |