AIM: To determine histologically whether (a) changing the thread design between first- and second-generation palatal implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) influences the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) rate of palatal implants subjected to conventional loading, and (b) whether histological evidence of peri-implantitis appears in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had received an orthodontic palatal implant for skeletal anchorage between January 1998 and December 2007 were examined. First-generation palatal implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) 3.3 mm in diameter and 6 mm or 4 mm long were used, as were second-generation implants 4.1 mm in diameter and 4.2 mm long. After completion of active orthodontic treatment, the implants were removed and prepared for histological investigation. This study was designed as a comparative analysis of a series of two cases: 28 explanted first-generation (n = 14) and second-generation (n = 14) palatal implants were analyzed. RESULTS: Bone healing was achieved with all implants. Both types of implants revealed a mean bone-to-implant contact (BIC) rate that was nearly equal: 80.7% (SD 10.7%) for the first-generation and 81% (SD 13.1%) for the second-generation implants. Bone resorption was only observed in 5 palatal implants (3/14 of the first, and 2/14 of the second generation). CONCLUSION: Despite differing thread designs, second-generation palatal implants revealed similar bone-to-implant contact rates as did those of the first generation. Few patients presented bone resorption in the peri-implant bone.
AIM: To determine histologically whether (a) changing the thread design between first- and second-generation palatal implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) influences the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) rate of palatal implants subjected to conventional loading, and (b) whether histological evidence of peri-implantitis appears in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had received an orthodontic palatal implant for skeletal anchorage between January 1998 and December 2007 were examined. First-generation palatal implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) 3.3 mm in diameter and 6 mm or 4 mm long were used, as were second-generation implants 4.1 mm in diameter and 4.2 mm long. After completion of active orthodontic treatment, the implants were removed and prepared for histological investigation. This study was designed as a comparative analysis of a series of two cases: 28 explanted first-generation (n = 14) and second-generation (n = 14) palatal implants were analyzed. RESULTS: Bone healing was achieved with all implants. Both types of implants revealed a mean bone-to-implant contact (BIC) rate that was nearly equal: 80.7% (SD 10.7%) for the first-generation and 81% (SD 13.1%) for the second-generation implants. Bone resorption was only observed in 5 palatal implants (3/14 of the first, and 2/14 of the second generation). CONCLUSION: Despite differing thread designs, second-generation palatal implants revealed similar bone-to-implant contact rates as did those of the first generation. Few patients presented bone resorption in the peri-implant bone.