Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Biofunctionalized 3D-printed gelatin-alginate scaffolds with arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) peptides for enhanced <i>in vitro</i> osteogenesis.

Journal of dental sciences·2026
Same author

Full-length 16S rRNA sequencing reveals microbial characteristics in supragingival plaque of periodontitis patients.

Journal of dental sciences·2025
Same author

Marginal bone level of dental implants using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing customized abutment and prefabricated abutment-A five-year follow-up.

Journal of dental sciences·2025
Same author

Improving osteogenic properties of zirconia ceramic via glow discharge plasma-enhanced deposition of amine organic compound.

Journal of dental sciences·2025
Same author

Enhancement of titanium surfaces using different acid solutions at room temperature to improve bone cell responses.

Journal of dental sciences·2025
Same author

Nanorough Surface of Fibronectin Grafted Bioactive Zirconia Dental Implants by Using Glow Discharge Plasma Promotes Osseointegration in a Rabbit Model.

International journal of nanomedicine·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 9, 2026

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
11:51

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

Published on: February 10, 2014

16.0K

Marginal Bone Level Evaluation after Functional Loading Around Two Different Dental Implant Designs.

Ko-Ning Ho1, Eisner Salamanca1, Hsi-Kuai Lin2

  • 1School of Dentistry, College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Biomed Research International
|December 22, 2016
PubMed
Summary

Submerged dental implants showed greater bone loss around the implant compared to nonsubmerged types. Specifically, the distal side of submerged implants experienced more marginal bone resorption than the mesial side.

More Related Videos

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
10:42

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

Published on: January 28, 2020

7.1K
In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint
07:09

In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint

Published on: March 7, 2014

13.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 9, 2026

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
11:51

An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage

Published on: February 10, 2014

16.0K
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
10:42

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

Published on: January 28, 2020

7.1K
In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint
07:09

In situ Compressive Loading and Correlative Noninvasive Imaging of the Bone-periodontal Ligament-tooth Fibrous Joint

Published on: March 7, 2014

13.9K

Area of Science:

  • Dental Implantology
  • Periodontology
  • Biomaterials Science

Background:

  • Alveolar bone stability is crucial for long-term dental implant success.
  • Understanding peri-implant bone changes is essential for evaluating implant designs.
  • Submerged and nonsubmerged implant placement represent distinct surgical and prosthetic approaches.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare peri-implant alveolar bone changes between submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants.
  • To evaluate bone resorption patterns using periapical radiographs before and after prosthetic restoration.
  • To assess bone-to-implant contact in relation to implant type and placement.

Main Methods:

  • Digital periapical radiographs were taken for 120 dental implants (60 nonsubmerged, 60 submerged).
  • Radiographs were acquired at baseline, immediately post-prosthetic delivery, and at 12 and 24 weeks.
  • Marginal bone resorption and bone-to-implant contact were analyzed.

Main Results:

  • Nonsubmerged implants exhibited minimal marginal bone resorption (0.10 mm at baseline to 0.16 mm at 24 weeks).
  • Submerged implants showed significantly higher bone resorption, particularly on the distal side (0.41 mm at baseline to 0.99 mm at 24 weeks).
  • Submerged implants demonstrated less bone-to-implant contact compared to nonsubmerged implants.

Conclusions:

  • Submerged dental implants are associated with greater mean marginal bone resorption than nonsubmerged implants.
  • The distal aspect of submerged implants experiences more significant bone loss than the mesial aspect.
  • Implant design and placement strategy influence peri-implant bone stability.