Mineralized tissue formation associated with 2 different dental implant designs: histomorphometric analyses performed in dogs.

The clinical success of dental implants might be associated with such factors as installation technique, implant shape, size, material, and screw threads. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze mineralized tissue formation on the screw threads of conical and cylindrical dental implants. This study includes 7 beagle dogs that had the lower premolars extracted. Three months after bone and soft tissue repair, 2 different designs of dental implants (1 conical and 1 cylindrical) were installed in each hemimandible using a nonsubmerged technique. Both implants when installed had different shape and thread, as revealed by scanning electron microscopy. Six weeks after implant installation, animals were killed and submitted to histomorphometric analysis. Cervical, middle, and apical areas were analyzed. Statistical analysis was carried out using Student t test at a significance level of P < .05. Statistically significant differences were not found between the conical and cylindrical implants. The conical implants presented fewer threads, a smaller area, and more bone formation when compared with the cylindrical ones, without significant differences (P  =  .1226). The highest values concerning bone formation were observed for the cervical area (P  =  .4005), and the lowest for the apical area (P  =  .1899); however, no statistically significant difference was observed. In conclusion, no statistically significant difference was observed in thread bone formation between the cylindrical and conical implant designs when placed using the nonsubmerged technique.

[1]  P. Cury,et al.  A finite element analysis of two different dental implants: stress distribution in the prosthesis, abutment, implant, and supporting bone. , 2008, The Journal of oral implantology.

[2]  Carlos Aparicio,et al.  Validity and clinical significance of biomechanical testing of implant/bone interface. , 2006, Clinical oral implants research.

[3]  B. Al-Nawas,et al.  Primary stability of a conical implant and a hybrid, cylindric screw-type implant in vitro. , 2006, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[4]  U. Joos,et al.  Biological and biomechanical evaluation of interface reaction at conical screw-type implants , 2006, Head & face medicine.

[5]  T. Einhorn,et al.  Application of Histomorphometric Methods to the Study of Bone Repair , 2005, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[6]  James Laney Williams,et al.  Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest. A three-dimensional finite-element analysis. , 2005, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  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.

[8]  Haruka Kusakari,et al.  Influence of implant design and bone quality on stress/strain distribution in bone around implants: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. , 2003, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

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

[10]  J. Hirsch,et al.  Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. , 1998, European journal of oral sciences.

[11]  F. Mante,et al.  Evaluating parameters of osseointegrated dental implants using finite element analysis--a two-dimensional comparative study examining the effects of implant diameter, implant shape, and load direction. , 1998, The Journal of oral implantology.

[12]  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.

[13]  D Buser,et al.  Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. , 1997, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  G Faulkner,et al.  Craniofacial osseointegrated implant-induced strain distribution: a numerical study. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system. , 1992, Clinical oral implants research.

[16]  Cook Sd,et al.  Relationship between surface characteristics and the degree of bone-implant integration. , 1992, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[17]  D Buser,et al.  Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. , 1991, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[18]  Hsuan-Yu Chou,et al.  Predictions of bone remodeling around dental implant systems. , 2008, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  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.

[20]  D Siegele,et al.  Numerical investigations of the influence of implant shape on stress distribution in the jaw bone. , 1989, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  H. Hansson,et al.  Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. , 1981, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.