BACKGROUND To evaluated the marginal bone loss around dental implants by two insertion methods. METHODS Eligible patients were divided into two groups; manual and mechanized groups. Peri-apical x-ray using a customized device to standardize the radiographs designed and used to take three periodical radiographs; after surgery, three months, and six months follow up. An independent t-test was used to compare the two groups regarding the average level of marginal bone loss (p < 0.05). RESULTS After excluding dropouts, a total of 273 patients (120 males and 153 females, aged between 25 and 67 years old) were included in the study. The average marginal bone loss in the manual insertion method was 0.44 ± 0.84 mm, and 0.59 ± 0.20 mm, and for the mechanized method was 0.51 ± 0.20 mm and 0.67 ± 0.19 mm after three and six months, respectively. There was a significant difference in marginal bone loss after six months between the two groups(p < 0.001). However, no differences were observed after three months (p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS Under the condition of this study, both techniques were safe and resulted in an acceptable amount of bone resorption; however, in the manual method, the less marginal bone loss occurred after six months.

中文翻译：

---

不同插入方法的下颌后牙种植体的边缘骨吸收。

背景技术为了通过两种插入方法评估牙种植体周围的边缘性骨丢失。方法将符合条件的患者分为两组。手动和机械化组。使用定制设备对根尖周X射线进行标准化，以设计并用于拍摄三张周期性射线照相的射线照片；术后三个月和六个月进行随访。使用独立的t检验比较两组的平均边缘骨质流失水平（p <0.05）。结果排除辍学后，总共纳入273例患者（男性120例，女性153例，年龄在25至67岁之间）。手动插入方法在三个月和六个月后的平均边缘骨丢失量分别为0.44±0.84 mm和0.59±0.20 mm，而机械化方法分别为0.51±0.20 mm和0.67±0.19 mm。两组在六个月后的边缘性骨丢失存在显着差异（p <0.001）。但是，三个月后未观察到差异（p = 0.24）。结论在这项研究的条件下，这两种技术都是安全的，并导致可接受的骨吸收量。但是，在手动方法中，六个月后发生的边缘骨丢失较少。