Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible.

BACKGROUND Endosseous implants can be placed according to a non-submerged or submerged approach and in 1- or 2-piece configurations. Recently, it was shown that peri-implant crestal bone changes differ significantly under such conditions and are dependent on a rough/smooth implant border in 1-piece implants and on the location of an interface (microgap) between the implant and abutment/restoration in 2-piece configurations. Several factors may influence the resultant level of the crestal bone under these conditions, including movements between implant components and the size of the microgap (interface) between the implant and abutment. However, no data are available on the impact of possible movements between these components or the impact of the size of the microgap (interface). The purpose of this study was to histometrically evaluate crestal bone changes around unloaded, 2-piece non-submerged titanium implants with 3 different microgap (interface) dimensions and between implants with components welded together or held together by a transocclusal screw. METHODS A total of 60 titanium implants were randomly placed in edentulous mandibular areas of 5 hounds forming 6 different implant subgroups (A through F). In general, all implants had a relatively smooth, machined suprabony portion 1 mm long, as well as a rough, sandblasted, and acid-etched (SLA) endosseous portion, all placed with their interface (microgap) 1 mm above the bone crest level and having abutments connected at the time of first-stage surgery. Implant types A, B, and C had a microgap of < 10 microns, approximately 50 microns, or approximately 100 microns between implant components as did types D, E, and F, respectively. As a major difference, however, abutments and implants of types A, B, and C were laser-welded together, not allowing for any movements between components, as opposed to types D, E, and F, where abutments and implants were held together by abutment screws. Three months after implant placement, all animals were sacrificed. Non-decalcified histology was analyzed histometrically by evaluating peri-implant crestal bone changes. RESULTS For implants in the laser-welded group (A, B, and C), mean crestal bone levels were located at a distance from the interface (IF; microgap) to the first bone-to-implant contact (fBIC) of 1.06 +/- 0.46 mm (standard deviation) for type A, 1.28 +/- 0.47 mm for type B, and 1.17 +/- 0.51 mm for type C. All implants of the non-welded group (D, E, and F) had significantly increased amounts of crestal bone loss, with 1.72 +/- 0.49 mm for type D (P < 0.01 compared to type A), 1.71 +/- 0.43 mm for type E (P < 0.02 compared to type B), and 1.65 +/- 0.37 mm for type F (P < 0.01 compared to type C). CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate, as evaluated by non-decalcified histology under unloaded conditions in the canine mandible, that crestal bone changes around 2-piece, non-submerged titanium implants are significantly influenced by possible movements between implants and abutments, but not by the size of the microgap (interface). Thus, significant crestal bone loss occurs in 2-piece implant configurations even with the smallest-sized microgaps (< 10 microns) in combination with possible movements between implant components.

[1]  F Sutter,et al.  The reactions of bone, connective tissue, and epithelium to endosteal implants with titanium-sprayed surfaces. , 1981, Journal of maxillofacial surgery.

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

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

[4]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Peri-implant tissues at submerged and non-submerged titanium implants. , 1999, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[5]  H. De Bruyn,et al.  Comparison of Brånemark fixture integration and short-term survival using one-stage or two-stage surgery in completely and partially edentulous mandibles. , 1998, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  Anthony W. Gargiulo,et al.  Dimensions and Relations of the Dentogingival Junction in Humans , 1961 .

[7]  J Lindström,et al.  Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. , 1969, Scandinavian journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery.

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

[9]  P. Branemark,et al.  Intra-Osseous Anchorage of Dental Prostheses , 1970, Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

[10]  D. Cochran,et al.  Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. , 1997, Journal of periodontology.

[11]  D. Cochran,et al.  Evaluation of an endosseous titanium implant with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface in the canine mandible: radiographic results. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  A P Saadoun,et al.  Single tooth implant--management for success. , 1994, Practical periodontics and aesthetic dentistry : PPAD.

[13]  R M Pilliar,et al.  Initial healing in the dog of submerged versus non-submerged porous-coated endosseous dental implants. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  U. Lekholm,et al.  One-step surgical placement of Brånemark implants: a prospective multicenter clinical study. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  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.

[16]  S. E. Keith,et al.  Marginal discrepancy of screw-retained and cemented metal-ceramic crowns on implants abutments. , 1999, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[17]  P. Glantz,et al.  Clinical and radiographical features of submerged and nonsubmerged titanium implants. , 1994, Clinical oral implants research.

[18]  D Buser,et al.  Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements. , 2001, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[19]  N. Lang,et al.  Clinical Experience with One-Stage, Non-Submerged Dental Implants , 1999, Advances in dental research.

[20]  P. Glantz,et al.  Radiographical and histological characteristics of submerged and nonsubmerged titanium implants. An experimental study in the Labrador dog. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

[21]  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.

[22]  K. Nilner,et al.  Some clinical and radiographical features of submerged and non-submerged titanium implants. A 5-year follow-up study. , 1997, Clinical oral implants research.

[23]  D. Cochran Implant therapy. I. , 1996, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[24]  J. Bernard,et al.  Osseointegration of Brånemark fixtures using a single-step operating technique. A preliminary prospective one-year study in the edentulous mandible. , 1995, Clinical oral implants research.

[25]  P I Brånemark,et al.  A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. , 1981, International journal of oral surgery.

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

[27]  A. C. Richardson,et al.  The dimensions of the human dentogingival junction. , 1994, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[28]  G Zarb,et al.  The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. , 1986, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.