Evaluation of periimplant bone neoformation using different scanning electron microscope methods for measuring BIC. A dog study

Objetives: The aim of this study was to determine which of three methods for measuring BIC (bone-to-implant contact), using vestibular and lingual scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for different implant systems at 15, 30 and 90 days post-surgery was the most precise. An elemental analysis with SEM was used to evaluate neoformed bone composition for three implant systems at the same study times. Material and Methods: 36 implants were placed in eighteen Beagle dogs mandible about one year old and weighing approximately 12-13 kg in order to evaluate bone apposition to three different implant surfaces. It was used the third and fourth premolar and first molar distal sockets in both quadrants of the mandible (3P3, 4P4 and 1M1). Teeth were hemi-sected and the distal roots were removed. The specimens were prepared for histological examination and each section surface was stained using Masson’s trichrome and hematoxylin and eosin stains. BIC evaluations were performed by the three methods, BIC I (the quantity of mineralized bone in direct contact with the implant’s titanium surface across the entire threaded area); BIC II (along a line that passes from apex to apex of the implant threads); BIC III (both in areas around and above the threads and in between threads). Results: Both BIC and bone content were analyzed for all implants placed in P3, P4 y M1 alveoli on both, the buccal and palatine sides (elemental analysis quantified Ca, P, O and C). It was seen it was only at the ninety-day mark that high percentages of calcium were present. Conclusions: This study suggest that BIC III evaluation is the most certain method for establishing the quantity of bone formed as the BIC area. Key words:Bone-to-impant contact, dogs, extraction socket, implants.

[1]  M. Peñarrocha-Diago,et al.  Marginal bone loss in relation to the implant neck surface: an update. , 2011, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[2]  R. Delgado-Ruiz,et al.  Calculation of bone graft volume using 3D reconstruction system. , 2011, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[3]  L. A. Bravo,et al.  Melatonin stimulates the growth of new bone around implants in the tibia of rabbits , 2010, Journal of pineal research.

[4]  S. Paredes,et al.  Actions of melatonin mixed with collagenized porcine bone versus porcine bone only on osteointegration of dental implants , 2010, Journal of pineal research.

[5]  J. Calvo-Guirado,et al.  Histological and histomorphometric evaluation of immediate implant placement on a dog model with a new implant surface treatment. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  Edgar Dutra Zanotto,et al.  Efficacy of a bioactive glass-ceramic (Biosilicate) in the maintenance of alveolar ridges and in osseointegration of titanium implants. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  J. Granjeiro,et al.  Early bone healing around implant surfaces treated with variations in the resorbable blasting media method. A study in rabbits. , 2010, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[8]  G. A. Soares,et al.  Osseointegration of titanium alloy and HA-coated implants in healthy and ovariectomized animals: a histomorphometric study. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[9]  A. Cutando,et al.  Melatonin plus porcine bone on discrete calcium deposit implant surface stimulates osteointegration in dental implants , 2009, Journal of pineal research.

[10]  Jose Luis Calvo-Guirado,et al.  Implant platform switching concept: an updated review. , 2009, Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal.

[11]  P. Schüpbach,et al.  Evaluation of nano-technology-modified zirconia oral implants: a study in rabbits. , 2009, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[12]  T. Cho,et al.  An Electronic Device for Accelerating Bone Formation Intissues Surrounding a Dental Implant , 2022 .

[13]  E. Nkenke,et al.  Influence of residual alveolar bone height on osseointegration of implants in the maxilla: a pilot study. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  A. Ruggeri,et al.  Histomorphometric evaluation of implant design as a key factor in peri-implant bone response: a preliminary study in a dog model. , 2009, Minerva stomatologica.

[15]  P. Vallittu,et al.  Bone tissue responses to glass fiber-reinforced composite implants--a histomorphometric study. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[16]  N. Lang,et al.  Effects of decontamination and implant surface characteristics on re-osseointegration following treatment of peri-implantitis. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[17]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Early healing of implants placed into fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the beagle dog. De novo bone formation. , 2009, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[18]  G. Reinhard,et al.  Long-term effects of magnetron-sputtered calcium phosphate coating on osseointegration of dental implants in non-human primates. , 2009 .

[19]  G. Schneider,et al.  Examination of the Bone–Implant Interface in Experimentally Induced Osteoporotic Bone , 2004, Implant dentistry.

[20]  T. Testori,et al.  Bone-implant contact on machined and dual acid-etched surfaces after 2 months of healing in the human maxilla. , 2003, Journal of periodontology.

[21]  L. Dermaut,et al.  A histomorphometric analysis of heavily loaded and non-loaded implants. , 2002, The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants.

[22]  A. Carr,et al.  Histomorphometric analysis of implant anchorage for 3 types of dental implants following 6 months of healing in baboon jaws. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[23]  B Rangert,et al.  Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants. An experimental study in rabbits. , 1997, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[24]  K. Donath,et al.  A method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissues. The Säge-Schliff (sawing and grinding) technique. , 1982, Journal of oral pathology.