OBJECTIVES: Bone formation and maintenance around implants placed immediately after tooth extraction may be affected by implant surface treatment and compromise long-term esthetic results. This study morphometrically evaluated buccal bone loss and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) of four implant systems placed immediately after tooth extraction in a dog model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The premolars of eight beagle dogs were bilaterally extracted with a full-thickness flap, and root-form dental implants were placed on the root extraction socket. Implants (n = 16 each) with different surface treatments were placed from sites 1 to 4 and alternated between animals to allow evaluation of the same number of implants at sites and evaluation time points. Implant surface treatments were as follows: anodized, discrete crystalline deposition, SLActive, and microblasted. The left and right side provided implants that stayed for 2 and 4 weeks, respectively. Submerged healing was allowed and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and buccal bone loss were morphometrically measured. Linear mixed models (P < 0.05) were used to assess differences between groups, across time, and their interaction. RESULTS: Buccal bone loss was observed to approximately double between 2 and 4 weeks (P = 0.01). BIC also increased between 2 and 4 weeks, by 20-25% (P = 0.01). These changes were statistically similar for each surface. CONCLUSION: When placed immediately after tooth extraction, the evaluated histomorphometric parameters vary only with time.
OBJECTIVES: Bone formation and maintenance around implants placed immediately after tooth extraction may be affected by implant surface treatment and compromise long-term esthetic results. This study morphometrically evaluated buccal bone loss and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) of four implant systems placed immediately after tooth extraction in a dog model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The premolars of eight beagle dogs were bilaterally extracted with a full-thickness flap, and root-form dental implants were placed on the root extraction socket. Implants (n = 16 each) with different surface treatments were placed from sites 1 to 4 and alternated between animals to allow evaluation of the same number of implants at sites and evaluation time points. Implant surface treatments were as follows: anodized, discrete crystalline deposition, SLActive, and microblasted. The left and right side provided implants that stayed for 2 and 4 weeks, respectively. Submerged healing was allowed and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and buccal bone loss were morphometrically measured. Linear mixed models (P < 0.05) were used to assess differences between groups, across time, and their interaction. RESULTS: Buccal bone loss was observed to approximately double between 2 and 4 weeks (P = 0.01). BIC also increased between 2 and 4 weeks, by 20-25% (P = 0.01). These changes were statistically similar for each surface. CONCLUSION: When placed immediately after tooth extraction, the evaluated histomorphometric parameters vary only with time.
Authors: Jeanne-Marie Damerau; Susanne Bierbaum; Daniel Wiedemeier; Paula Korn; Ralf Smeets; Gregor Jenny; Johanna Nadalini; Bernd Stadlinger Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 3.405