Biologic width changes around loaded implants inserted in different levels in relation to crestal bone: histometric evaluation in canine mandible.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the present study was to evaluate histometric changes around dental implants inserted at different levels in relation to the crestal bone, under different loading conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty-six implants were inserted in the edentulous mandible of six mongrel dogs. Each implant was assigned to an experimental group according to the distance from the top of the implant to the crestal bone: Bone Level (at the crestal bone level), Minus 1 (1 mm below the crestal bone) or Minus 2 group (2 mm below the crestal bone). Each hemimandible was submitted to a loading protocol: conventional or immediate restoration. After 90 days, the animals were killed. Specimens were processed, and measurements were performed concerning the length of soft and hard peri-implant tissues. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Student's t test (alpha=5%). RESULTS Among conventionally restored sites, the distance from the most coronal position of soft tissue margin (PSTM) and first bone-implant contact (fBIC) was greater for Minus 2 than for Bone Level and Minus 1 sites (P=0.03), but significant differences were not observed among immediately restored sites. Differences among groups were not observed concerning the PSTM, and the distance from the implant-abutment junction to fBIC. Greater amounts of lateral bone loss were observed for conventionally than for immediately restored sites (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that the apical positioning of the top of the implant may not jeopardize the position of soft peri-implant tissues, and that immediate restoration can be beneficial to minimize lateral bone loss. Further studies are suggested to evaluate the clinical significance of these results in longer healing periods.

[1]  D. Cochran,et al.  The effect of a machined collar on coronal hard tissue around titanium implants: a radiographic study in the canine mandible. , 2005, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[2]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Bone remodeling in immediately loaded and unloaded titanium dental implants: a histologic and histomorphometric study in humans. , 2005, The Journal of oral implantology.

[3]  Paul Fletcher,et al.  Vertical distance from the crest of bone to the height of the interproximal papilla between adjacent implants. , 2003, Journal of periodontology.

[4]  Giovanna Iezzi,et al.  Histologic Evaluation of 2 Human Immediately Loaded and 1 Submerged Titanium Implants Inserted in the Posterior Mandible and Retrieved After 6 Months , 2003 .

[5]  G. Romanos,et al.  Peri-implant soft tissue integration of immediately loaded implants in the posterior macaque mandible: a histomorphometric study. , 2003, Journal of periodontology.

[6]  D Buser,et al.  Persistent Acute Inflammation at the Implant-Abutment Interface , 2003, Journal of dental research.

[7]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Influence of the microgap in the peri-implant hard and soft tissues: a histomorphometric study in dogs. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[8]  D. Cochran,et al.  Biologic Width around one- and two-piece titanium implants. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[9]  H. Salama,et al.  Two-stage versus one-stage--is there really a controversy? , 2001, Journal of periodontology.

[10]  D P Tarnow,et al.  The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. , 2000, Journal of periodontology.

[11]  U Grunder,et al.  Stability of the mucosal topography around single-tooth implants and adjacent teeth: 1-year results. , 2000, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[12]  D Buser,et al.  Biologic width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. , 2000, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  A P Saadoun,et al.  Selection and ideal tridimensional implant position for soft tissue aesthetics. , 1999, Practical periodontics and aesthetic dentistry : PPAD.

[14]  J. Lindhe,et al.  The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. , 1997, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[15]  A. Scarano,et al.  High-precision, cost-effective cutting system for producing thin sections of oral tissues containing dental implants. , 1997, Biomaterials.

[16]  D Buser,et al.  Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. , 1997, Journal of periodontology.

[17]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. , 1996, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[18]  J. Wennström,et al.  The peri-implant hard and soft tissues at different implant systems. A comparative study in the dog. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  H. Frost,et al.  Perspectives: The role of changes in mechanical usage set points in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis , 1992, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[20]  P. Thomsen,et al.  The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. , 1991, Clinical oral implants research.

[21]  A. Terano,et al.  An Experimental Study in Dogs , 1990 .