OBJECTIVE: To analyze hard tissue reactions to immediate functionally loaded single implants that were installed either with a conventional drill preparation procedure or with an osteotome preparation technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirteen subjects with two sites requiring single tooth rehabilitation by means of implants volunteered for the study. Each subject received one test (immediate functionally loaded) and one control (non-loaded) implant. In six subjects (group 1) the implants were placed using a conventional drilling procedure, whereas in the remaining seven subjects (group 2) an osteotome preparation procedure was performed. Block biopsies containing test and control implants and peri-implant bone tissues were collected at 1 month in four of the subjects in group 1 and in five subjects of group 2. The remaining implant sites were sampled at 3 months after implant placement. The biopsies were prepared for histological examination. RESULTS: Two implants of the test-2 group (osteotome preparation) representing 1 month of healing and another test-2 implant representing 3 months of healing failed to integrate. A multilevel multivariate statistical analysis demonstrated that no differences in bone-to-implant contact (BIC)% were found in between test and control implants, the density of newly formed peri-implant bone was significantly higher around test than control implants at 1 and 3 months of healing. Sections representing osteotome technique sites showed fractured trabeculae and large amounts of bone particles. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that immediate loading of implants does not influence the osseointegration process, whereas the density of newly formed peri-implant bone at such sites appears to be increased in relation to unloaded control implants. The use of an osteotome preparation technique during installation results in damage of peri-implant bone and enhances the risk for failure in osseointegration.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To analyze hard tissue reactions to immediate functionally loaded single implants that were installed either with a conventional drill preparation procedure or with an osteotome preparation technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen subjects with two sites requiring single tooth rehabilitation by means of implants volunteered for the study. Each subject received one test (immediate functionally loaded) and one control (non-loaded) implant. In six subjects (group 1) the implants were placed using a conventional drilling procedure, whereas in the remaining seven subjects (group 2) an osteotome preparation procedure was performed. Block biopsies containing test and control implants and peri-implant bone tissues were collected at 1 month in four of the subjects in group 1 and in five subjects of group 2. The remaining implant sites were sampled at 3 months after implant placement. The biopsies were prepared for histological examination. RESULTS: Two implants of the test-2 group (osteotome preparation) representing 1 month of healing and another test-2 implant representing 3 months of healing failed to integrate. A multilevel multivariate statistical analysis demonstrated that no differences in bone-to-implant contact (BIC)% were found in between test and control implants, the density of newly formed peri-implant bone was significantly higher around test than control implants at 1 and 3 months of healing. Sections representing osteotome technique sites showed fractured trabeculae and large amounts of bone particles. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that immediate loading of implants does not influence the osseointegration process, whereas the density of newly formed peri-implant bone at such sites appears to be increased in relation to unloaded control implants. The use of an osteotome preparation technique during installation results in damage of peri-implant bone and enhances the risk for failure in osseointegration.
Authors: Martina Sladkova-Faure; Michael Pujari-Palmer; Caroline Öhman-Mägi; Alejandro López; Hanbin Wang; Håkan Engqvist; Giuseppe Maria de Peppo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Antoine N Berberi; Joseph M Sabbagh; Moustafa N Aboushelib; Ziad F Noujeim; Ziad A Salameh Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 4.566