Bone regeneration at implants with turned or rough surfaces in self-contained defects. An experimental study in the dog.

BACKGROUND Marginal hard tissue defects present at implants with a rough surface can heal with a high degree of bone fill and osseointegration. The healing of similar defects adjacent to implants with a smooth surface appears to be less predictable. OBJECTIVE The aim was to compare bone healing at implants with turned or rough surface topographies placed in self-contained defects using either a submerged or non-submerged installation technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six dogs were used. Three months after tooth extraction four experimental sites were prepared for implant installation in both sides of the mandible. The marginal 5 mm of the canal prepared for the implant was widened. Thus, following implant placement a circumferential gap occurred between the bone tissue and the implant surface that was between 1 and 1.25 mm wide. In each side of the mandible two implants with a turned surface and two implants with a rough surface were installed. The implants in the right side were fully submerged, while a non-submerged technique was applied in the left side. The animals were sacrificed 4 months later, block biopsies of each implant site were dissected and ground as well as paraffin sections were prepared. RESULTS The marginal defects around rough surface implants exhibited after 4 months of healing substantial bone fill and a high degree of osseointegration following either the submerged or the non-submerged installation technique. Healing at turned implants was characterized by incomplete bone fill and the presence of a connective tissue zone between the implant and the newly formed bone. The distance between the implant margin (M) and the most coronal level of bone-to-implant contact (B) at implants with a rough surface was 0.84+/-0.37 mm at submerged and 0.90+/-0.39 mm at non-submerged sites. The distance M-B at implants with a turned surface was 3.39+/-0.52 mm at submerged and 3.23+/-0.68 mm at non-submerged sites. The differences between the rough and turned implants regarding the length of distance M-B were statistically significant (paired t-test). CONCLUSION Osseointegration at implants placed in sites with marginal defects is influenced by the surface characteristics of the implant.

[1]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. , 2004, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[2]  N. Lang,et al.  Early bone formation adjacent to rough and turned endosseous implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[3]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Resolution of bone defects of varying dimension and configuration in the marginal portion of the peri-implant bone. An experimental study in the dog. , 2004, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[4]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Submerged or non-submerged healing of endosseous implants to be used in the rehabilitation of partially dentate patients. , 2004, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[5]  P. Trisi,et al.  Osseointegration of Osseotite and machined titanium implants in autogenous bone graft. A histologic and histomorphometric study in dogs. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  Niklaus P Lang,et al.  De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. , 2003, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  J. Lindhe,et al.  The jumping distance revisited: An experimental study in the dog. , 2003, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Re-osseointegration after treatment of peri-implantitis at different implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[9]  D. Cochran,et al.  A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. , 1999, Journal of periodontology.

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

[11]  D. Baker,et al.  Evaluation of titanium implants placed into simulated extraction sockets: a study in dogs. , 1999, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[12]  N. Lang,et al.  Attempts to obtain re-osseointegration following experimental peri-implantitis in dogs. , 1999, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  J. Fiorellini,et al.  Guided bone regeneration utilizing expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in combination with submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants in beagle dogs. , 1998, Journal of periodontology.

[14]  J. Davies,et al.  Mechanisms of endosseous integration. , 1998, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[15]  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.

[16]  B. Mealey,et al.  Effects of guided bone regeneration around commercially pure titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated dental implants. II. Histologic analysis. , 1997, Journal of periodontology.

[17]  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.

[18]  A Wennerberg,et al.  Characterizing three-dimensional topography of engineering and biomaterial surfaces by confocal laser scanning and stylus techniques. , 1996, Medical engineering & physics.

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

[20]  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.

[21]  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.

[22]  J. Fiorellini,et al.  Comparison of healed tissues adjacent to submerged and non-submerged unloaded titanium dental implants. A histometric study in beagle dogs. , 1996, Clinical oral implants research.

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

[24]  J. Lindhe,et al.  The topography of the vascular systems in the periodontal and peri-implant tissues in the dog. , 1994, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[25]  J. Fiorellini,et al.  Soft tissue reactions to non-submerged unloaded titanium implants in beagle dogs. , 1992, Journal of periodontology.

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

[27]  D. Buser,et al.  Tissue integration of one-stage ITI implants: 3-year results of a longitudinal study with Hollow-Cylinder and Hollow-Screw implants. , 1991, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[28]  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.

[29]  H. Schroeder,et al.  Morphometric model, tissue sampling and test of stereologic procedures , 1973, Journal of microscopy.