Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a methodologic study comparing linear radiographic with histometric measurements.

Generally, endosseous implants can be placed according to a nonsubmerged or a submerged technique and in 1-piece or 2-piece configurations. Recently, it has been shown that peri-implant crestal bone reactions differ significantly radiographically as well as histometrically under such conditions and are dependent on a rough/smooth implant border in 1-piece implants and on the location of a microgap (interface) between the implant and the abutment/restoration in 2-piece configurations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether standardized radiography as a noninvasive clinical diagnostic method correlates with peri-implant crestal bone levels as determined by histometric analysis. Fifty-nine implants were placed in edentulous mandibular areas of 5 foxhounds in a side-by-side comparison in both submerged and nonsubmerged techniques. Three months after implant placement, abutment connection was performed in the submerged implant sites. At 6 months, all animals were sacrificed, and evaluations of the first bone-to-implant contact (fBIC), determined on standardized periapical radiographs, were compared to similar analyses made from nondecalcified histology. It was shown that both techniques provide the same information (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.993; P < .001). The precision of the radiographs was within 0.1 mm of the histometry in 73.4% of the evaluations, while the level of agreement fell to between 0.1 and 0.2 mm in 15.9% of the cases. These data demonstrate in an experimental study that standardized periapical radiography can evaluate crestal bone levels around implants clinically accurately (within 0.2 mm) in a high percentage (89%) of cases. These findings are significant because crestal bone levels can be determined using a noninvasive technique, and block sectioning or sacrifice of the animal subject is not required. In addition, longitudinal evaluations can be made accurately such that bone changes over various time periods can be assessed. Such analyses may prove beneficial when trying to distinguish physiologic changes from pathologic changes or when trying to determine causes and effects of bone changes around dental implants.

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

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

[3]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Long-standing plaque and gingivitis at implants and teeth in the dog. , 1992, Clinical oral implants research.

[4]  T. A. Larheim,et al.  Method for radiographic assessment of alveolar bone level at endosseous implants and abutment teeth. , 1979, Scandinavian journal of dental research.

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

[6]  I. Sewerin Estimation of angulation of Brånemark titanium fixtures from radiographic thread images. , 1991, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  P. Thomsen,et al.  Light and transmission electron microscopy used to study the tissue morphology close to implants. , 1985, Biomaterials.

[8]  L Hollender,et al.  A radiographic method for assessing changes in alveolar bone height following periodontal therapy. , 1975, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[9]  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.

[10]  F. Isidor Clinical probing and radiographic assessment in relation to the histologic bone level at oral implants in monkeys. , 1997, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  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.

[12]  I Naert,et al.  The relationship of some histologic parameters, radiographic evaluations, and Periotest measurements of oral implants: an experimental animal study. , 1997, The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants.

[13]  G. Dickson Methods of Calcified Tissue Preparation , 1984 .

[14]  F. Isidor,et al.  Mobility assessment with the Periotest system in relation to histologic findings of oral implants. , 1998, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  J. Strub,et al.  Influence of the suprastructure on the peri-implant tissues in beagle dogs. , 1995, Clinical oral implants research.

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

[17]  Ray Williams,et al.  Periodontal regeneration of human infrabony defects. III. Diagnostic strategies to detect bone gain. , 1993, Journal of periodontology.

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

[19]  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.

[20]  I P Sewerin,et al.  Accuracy of radiographic diagnosis of peri-implant radiolucencies--an in vitro experiment. , 1997, Clinical oral implants research.

[21]  Evans Gh,et al.  Loaded and nonloaded titanium versus hydroxyapatite-coated threaded implants in the canine mandible. , 1996 .

[22]  Flemming lsidor Clinical probing and radiographic assessment in relation to the histologic bone level at oral implants in monkeys , 1997 .

[23]  P. Millstein,et al.  Tube angulation effect on radiographic analysis of the implant-abutment interface. , 1999, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

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

[25]  D Buser,et al.  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. , 2001, Journal of periodontology.

[26]  K. Stoltze,et al.  Histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of tissue reactions adjacent to endosteal implants in monkeys. , 1991, Clinical oral implants research.

[27]  J. Strub,et al.  Influence of the sumastructure on the peri-implant tissue; in beagle dogs , 1995 .

[28]  D. Cochran,et al.  The accuracy of radiographic methods in assessing the outcome of periodontal regenerative therapy. , 1999, Journal of periodontology.

[29]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Soft tissue reaction to de novo plaque formation on implants and teeth. An experimental study in the dog. , 1992, Clinical oral implants research.

[30]  A. C. Richardson,et al.  The accuracy of dental radiographic techniques used for evaluation of implant fixture placement. , 1995, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[31]  I P Sewerin,et al.  Errors in radiographic assessment of marginal bone height around osseointegrated implants. , 1990, Scandinavian journal of dental research.

[32]  I. Sewerin Radiographic image characteristics of Brånemark titanium fixtures. , 1992, Swedish Dental Journal.

[33]  D Buser,et al.  Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. , 1997, Journal of periodontology.

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

[35]  T. A. Larheim,et al.  Measurements of alveolar bone height at tooth and implant abutments on intraoral radiographs. A comparison of reproducibility of Eggen technique utilized with and without a bite impression. , 1982, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[36]  A. J. Mendez,et al.  Loaded and nonloaded titanium versus hydroxyapatite-coated threaded implants in the canine mandible. , 1996, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[37]  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.