Literature DB >> 20074244

Histological and histomorphometric evaluation of immediate implant placement on a dog model with a new implant surface treatment.

J L Calvo-Guirado1, A J Ortiz-Ruiz, B Negri, L López-Marí, C Rodriguez-Barba, F Schlottig.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate crestal bone resorption and bone apposition resulting from immediate post-extraction implants in the canine mandible, comparing a conditioned sandblasted acid-etched implant surface with a non-conditioned standard sandblasted implant surface.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this experimental study, third and fourth premolars and distal roots of first molars were extracted bilaterally from six Beagle dog mandibles. Each side of the mandible received three assigned dental implants, with the conditioned surface (CS) on the right side and the non-conditioned surface (NCS) on the left. The dogs were sacrificed at 2 (n=2), 4 (n=2) and 12 weeks (n=2) after implant placement.
RESULTS: The microscopic healing patterns at 2, 4 and 12 weeks for both implant types (CS and NCS) yielded similar qualitative bone findings. The mean crestal bone resorption was found to be greater for all implants with NCS (2.28+/-1.9 mm) than CS (1.21+/-1.05 mm) at 12 weeks. The mean percentage of newly formed bone in contact with implants was greater in implants CS (44.67+/-0.19%) than with the NCS (36,6+/-0.11%). There was less bone resorption with the CS than the NCS.
CONCLUSION: The data show significantly more bone apposition (8% more) and less crestal bone resorption (1.07 mm) with the CS than with the NCS after 12 weeks of healing. This CS can reduce the healing period and increase bone apposition in immediate implant placements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20074244     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01841.x

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


  10 in total

1.  Evaluation of trabecular bone formation in a canine model surrounding a dental implant fixture immobilized with an antimicrobial peptide derived from histatin.

Authors:  Seicho Makihira; Hiroki Nikawa; Takahiro Shuto; Masahiro Nishimura; Yuichi Mine; Koichiro Tsuji; Keishi Okamoto; Yuhiro Sakai; Masanori Sakai; Naoya Imari; Satoshi Iwata; Mika Takeda; Fumio Suehiro
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2011-09-08       Impact factor: 3.896

2.  Alveolar Bone Marrow Gli1+ Stem Cells Support Implant Osseointegration.

Authors:  Y Yi; W Stenberg; W Luo; J Q Feng; H Zhao
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 6.116

Review 3.  Evaluation of Implant Collar Surfaces for Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Roodabeh Koodaryan; Ali Hafezeqoran
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration.

Authors:  Ralf Smeets; Bernd Stadlinger; Frank Schwarz; Benedicta Beck-Broichsitter; Ole Jung; Clarissa Precht; Frank Kloss; Alexander Gröbe; Max Heiland; Tobias Ebker
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Evaluation of a New Dental Implant Cervical Design in Comparison with a Conventional Design in an Experimental American Foxhound Model.

Authors:  Maria Ángeles Pérez-Albacete Martínez; Carlos Pérez-Albacete Martínez; José Eduardo Maté Sánchez De Val; María Luisa Ramos Oltra; Manuel Fernández Domínguez; Jose Luis Calvo Guirado
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 3.623

6.  Influence of surface treatment on osseointegration of dental implants: histological, histomorphometric and radiological analysis in vivo.

Authors:  José Luis Calvo-Guirado; Marta Satorres-Nieto; Antonio Aguilar-Salvatierra; Rafael Arcesio Delgado-Ruiz; José Eduardo Maté-Sánchez de Val; Jordi Gargallo-Albiol; Gerardo Gómez-Moreno; Georgios E Romanos
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Evaluation of periimplant bone neoformation using different scanning electron microscope methods for measuring BIC. A dog study.

Authors:  José L Calvo-Guirado; Antonio Aguilar-Salvatierra; Javier Guardia; Rafael Delgado-Ruiz; María P Ramírez-Fernández; Cristina Pérez Sánchez; Gerardo Gómez-Moreno
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2012-02-01

8.  Early loading of hydrophilic titanium implants inserted in low-mineralized (D3 and D4) bone: one year results of a prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  Uwe Held; Dennis Rohner; Daniel Rothamel
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 2.151

9.  Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in peri-implant bone: A prospective comparative study.

Authors:  Hilario Pellicer-Chover; María Peñarrocha-Diago; David Peñarrocha-Oltra; Sonia Gomar-Vercher; Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2016-01-01

10.  Synergistic interactions of blood-borne immune cells, fibroblasts and extracellular matrix drive repair in an in vitro peri-implant wound healing model.

Authors:  Melanie A Burkhardt; Jasmin Waser; Vincent Milleret; Isabel Gerber; Maximilian Y Emmert; Jasper Foolen; Simon P Hoerstrup; Falko Schlottig; Viola Vogel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.