Jonathan L Gray1, Arthur R Vernino. 1. Indiana University School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontics Program, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5186, USA. Jlgray36@yahoo.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study is a derivative of another study evaluating implant efficacy in baboons. In the previous study it was noted that some implants were placed near or into retained root tips. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the inadvertent placement of root form implants into or near retained root fragments. METHODS: The baboon has severe dilacerations at the apices of the roots, making extraction very difficult; 120 teeth were extracted from 10 baboons. After the sites had healed, root form implants were placed in each of the sites. Sites were either loaded at various time intervals or left unloaded. Block sections were removed and processed for histologic examination. RESULTS: When the specimens were analyzed, it was noted that several implants were placed through retained root fragments, while others were placed through the periodontal ligament of other root fragments. In a few cases, implants were close to, but not in contact with, either the root or the periodontal ligament. These implants functioned as well as the others in the study. Histologically, there was no inflammation at any site. In some sections, the roots were in intimate contact with the implants, while in others, there was a gap between the two. Where the implant was in contact with the periodontal ligament, there was no apparent fibrous encapsulization of the implant. In some areas, it appeared that a calcified material was deposited on the implants. It was not possible to determine whether this material was bone or cementum. CONCLUSION: Unintentional placement of dental implants into retained root fragments did not result in any inflammation and may have produced cementum or cementum-like matrix on the titanium surface adjacent to the periodontal ligament of the retained root tip.
BACKGROUND: This study is a derivative of another study evaluating implant efficacy in baboons. In the previous study it was noted that some implants were placed near or into retained root tips. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the inadvertent placement of root form implants into or near retained root fragments. METHODS: The baboon has severe dilacerations at the apices of the roots, making extraction very difficult; 120 teeth were extracted from 10 baboons. After the sites had healed, root form implants were placed in each of the sites. Sites were either loaded at various time intervals or left unloaded. Block sections were removed and processed for histologic examination. RESULTS: When the specimens were analyzed, it was noted that several implants were placed through retained root fragments, while others were placed through the periodontal ligament of other root fragments. In a few cases, implants were close to, but not in contact with, either the root or the periodontal ligament. These implants functioned as well as the others in the study. Histologically, there was no inflammation at any site. In some sections, the roots were in intimate contact with the implants, while in others, there was a gap between the two. Where the implant was in contact with the periodontal ligament, there was no apparent fibrous encapsulization of the implant. In some areas, it appeared that a calcified material was deposited on the implants. It was not possible to determine whether this material was bone or cementum. CONCLUSION: Unintentional placement of dental implants into retained root fragments did not result in any inflammation and may have produced cementum or cementum-like matrix on the titanium surface adjacent to the periodontal ligament of the retained root tip.