OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of lateral static load in immediately restored implants in the canine mandible. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 7 mongrel dogs, all premolars and the first molars were extracted bilaterally in the mandible. Two months after the extractions, 6 implants with sandblasted acid-etched surfaces were placed in each animal, 3 on each side. Randomly, two implants per side were immediately restored with an orthodontic expansion device that promoted lateral excessive static load (test group) or load (control) while the third implant of each side, remained submerged (unloaded group). These loaded devices were cleaned daily with chlorhexidine 0.12%, during the 4 months of study, when the animals were sacrificed and biopsies removed for histometric study. Intra-oral periapicals were made using positioners at the beginning and at the end of the study. RESULTS: Five implants from test group were lost in 3 dogs. Radiographically, there was a marginal bone loss of 3.68 ± 0.74 mm for the test group, 1.63 ± 0.2 mm for the control group and 0.45 ± 0.5 mm for the unloaded group. Histometrically, the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC%) was 35.52 ± 7.32%, for the test group, 63.16 ± 5.16% for the control group and 42.33 ± 2.14% for the unloaded group. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the excessive lateral static load negatively affected the behavior of peri-implant bone around immediate restored implants.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of lateral static load in immediately restored implants in the canine mandible. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 7 mongrel dogs, all premolars and the first molars were extracted bilaterally in the mandible. Two months after the extractions, 6 implants with sandblasted acid-etched surfaces were placed in each animal, 3 on each side. Randomly, two implants per side were immediately restored with an orthodontic expansion device that promoted lateral excessive static load (test group) or load (control) while the third implant of each side, remained submerged (unloaded group). These loaded devices were cleaned daily with chlorhexidine 0.12%, during the 4 months of study, when the animals were sacrificed and biopsies removed for histometric study. Intra-oral periapicals were made using positioners at the beginning and at the end of the study. RESULTS: Five implants from test group were lost in 3 dogs. Radiographically, there was a marginal bone loss of 3.68 ± 0.74 mm for the test group, 1.63 ± 0.2 mm for the control group and 0.45 ± 0.5 mm for the unloaded group. Histometrically, the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC%) was 35.52 ± 7.32%, for the test group, 63.16 ± 5.16% for the control group and 42.33 ± 2.14% for the unloaded group. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the excessive lateral static load negatively affected the behavior of peri-implant bone around immediate restored implants.