Literature DB >> 12755781

Bone contact, growth, and density around immediately loaded implants in the mandible of mini pigs.

Emeka Nkenke1, Bernhard Lehner, Konstanze Weinzierl, Ulf Thams, Jörg Neugebauer, Helmut Steveling, Martin Radespiel-Tröger, Friedrich Wilhelm Neukam.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the bone mineral apposition rate (BMAR) of immediately loaded implants with an unloaded control during the early healing phase in the partially edentulous mandible. In seven mini pigs, three premolars and the first molar were removed in the left mandible. Three months later, five implants were installed. Four implants received a fixed provisional restoration and were loaded immediately. The most anterior implant was used as unloaded control. Polychromatic fluorescence labelling was performed to assess the BMAR. After 4 months, the implants were retrieved together with the adjacent bone. Histological specimens were prepared and subjected to a fluorescence microscopic and histomorphometric analysis. Two provisional restorations were found partially lost at the end of the observation period. One implant that had lost the splinting fixation showed soft connective tissue healing. The BMAR did not differ statistically significantly between loaded and unloaded implants and within the single groups during the observation period (BMARloaded days 14-42=1.8+/-0.2 microm/d, BMARloaded days 42-70=1.8+/-0.1 microm/d, BMARloaded days 70-98=1.6+/-0.1 microm/d, pBMARloaded days 14-42/42-70/70-98 =0.156, BMARunloaded days 14-42=1.7+/-0.1 microm/d, BMARunloaded days 42-70=1.8+/-0.2 microm/d, BMARunloaded days 70-98=1.6+/-0.4 microm/d, pBMARunloaded days 14-42/42-70/70-98=0.368, pBMARloaded/unloaded days 14-42=0.073, pBMARloaded/unloaded days 42-70=0.098, pBMARloaded/unloaded days 70-98=0.262). Four months after implant placement, the bone-to-implant contact was 77.8+/-17.3% for the loaded and 78.0+/-5.8% for the unloaded implants (P=0.753). Immediate loading does not affect the bone mineral apposition rate when compared with unloaded implants. Rigid splinting seems to be the crucial factor for implant success. Uncontrolled masticatory forces can cause failure after partial loss of the provisional restoration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12755781     DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.120906.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  12 in total

1.  Comparative study of immediate functional loading and immediate non-functional loading of monocortical implants.

Authors:  J P Singh; A K Gupta; R K Dhiman; S K Roy Chowdhury
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2014-03-12

2.  Towards the limit of quantifying low-amplitude strains on bone and in coagulum around immediately loaded oral implants in extraction sockets.

Authors:  Murat Cavit Cehreli; Ayhan Comert; Murat Akkocaoglu; Ibrahim Tekdemir; Kivanc Akca
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Immediate loading of implants in the edentulous mandible: a multicentre study.

Authors:  Paulo Esteves Pinto Faria; Bárbara Masalskas; Anders Heyden; Lars Rasmusson; Luiz Antonio Salata
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2016-09-16

4.  Effect of decreased implant healing time on bone (re)modeling adjacent to plateaued implants under functional loading in a dog model.

Authors:  Jing Dai; Ning Cheng; Richard J Miron; Bin Shi; Xiangrong Cheng; Yufeng Zhang
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-02-03       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Porcine adipose-derived stem cells from buccal fat pad and subcutaneous adipose tissue for future preclinical studies in oral surgery.

Authors:  Stefania Niada; Lorena Maria Ferreira; Elena Arrigoni; Alessandro Addis; Marino Campagnol; Eugenio Broccaioli; Anna Teresa Brini
Journal:  Stem Cell Res Ther       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 6.832

6.  Refining experimental dental implant testing in the Göttingen Minipig using 3D computed tomography-A morphometric study of the mandibular canal.

Authors:  Giuliano M Corte; Johanna Plendl; Hana Hünigen; Kenneth C Richardson; Ole Gemeinhardt; Stefan M Niehues
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Immediate vs. delayed endosseous integration of maxi implants: a torque removal animal study.

Authors:  Hanif Allahbakhshi; Fariborz Vafaee; Mehrdad Lotfazar; Ahmad Hasan Ahangary; Masoumeh Khoshhal; Farnoush Fotovat
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2017-06-21

8.  The Bone Buttress Theory: The Effect of the Mechanical Loading of Bone on the Osseointegration of Dental Implants.

Authors:  David Chavarri-Prado; Aritza Brizuela-Velasco; Ángel Álvarez-Arenal; Markel Dieguez-Pereira; Esteban Pérez-Pevida; Iratxe Viteri-Agustín; Alejandro Estrada-Martínez
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-28

9.  Ultrastructure of the interface between periodontal tissues and titanium mini-implants.

Authors:  Jaqueline Carvalho Rinaldi; Victor E Arana-Chavez
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Comparative evaluation of two types of immediately loaded implants using biomechanical and histomorphometric tests: an animal case study.

Authors:  Mansour Rismanchian; Bijan Movahedian; Navid Khalighinejad; Hamid Badrian; Sayed Mohammad Razavi; Afsaneh Nekouie
Journal:  ISRN Dent       Date:  2012-07-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.