OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare bone behaviour around an experimental implant design with a high insertion torque with the Astra-Tech implant (control). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In ten 18-month-old male minipigs, the last premolars and first molars were extracted to provide space for two implants in each quadrant. A first set of 40 implants were placed 3 months after the extraction and 40 additional implants were installed another 2 months later. The animals were sacrificed 3 months after the first implant installation so that half of the implants had healed for 1 month and the other half for 3 months. Radiological evaluation was performed at baseline, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after implant installation. Bone defect depth and area, bone level changes, bone-to-implant contact density, and peri-implant bone fraction were measured histomorphometrically. RESULTS: Radiological analyses revealed a significantly higher bone loss around the experimental implants. Histomorphometric analyses confirmed significantly more bone loss, larger marginal bone defects, and a lower overall peri-implant bone fraction around the experimental implants. CONCLUSION: The experimental implant design caused significantly more peri-implant bone loss compared with the control implant. As strain gauge measurements indicate excessive marginal strains around the experimental implants, osseocompression might have played a role in the observed marginal bone loss.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare bone behaviour around an experimental implant design with a high insertion torque with the Astra-Tech implant (control). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In ten 18-month-old male minipigs, the last premolars and first molars were extracted to provide space for two implants in each quadrant. A first set of 40 implants were placed 3 months after the extraction and 40 additional implants were installed another 2 months later. The animals were sacrificed 3 months after the first implant installation so that half of the implants had healed for 1 month and the other half for 3 months. Radiological evaluation was performed at baseline, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months after implant installation. Bone defect depth and area, bone level changes, bone-to-implant contact density, and peri-implant bone fraction were measured histomorphometrically. RESULTS: Radiological analyses revealed a significantly higher bone loss around the experimental implants. Histomorphometric analyses confirmed significantly more bone loss, larger marginal bone defects, and a lower overall peri-implant bone fraction around the experimental implants. CONCLUSION: The experimental implant design caused significantly more peri-implant bone loss compared with the control implant. As strain gauge measurements indicate excessive marginal strains around the experimental implants, osseocompression might have played a role in the observed marginal bone loss.
Authors: J Y Cha; M D Pereira; A A Smith; K S Houschyar; X Yin; S Mouraret; J B Brunski; J A Helms Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Helder H M Menezes; Marina M Naves; Henara L Costa; Tarsis P Barbosa; Jéssica A Ferreira; Denildo Magalhães; Elizabeth F Martinez Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2018-10-17