OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration and crestal bone loss (CBL) in two implant designs with different diameters (Mini Sky® and Narrow Sky®) implants, placed at different vertical levels at healed canine ridges. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The second, third, and fourth mandibular premolars of six Beagle dogs were extracted bilaterally. After 2 months healing, four implants divided into two groups according to their diameters (i.e., Narrow Sky® and Mini Sky®) were placed in each hemi-mandible at the level of the bone crest or 2 mm subcrestally. The animals were euthanized at 12 weeks and undecalcified samples were processed for histology. Histomorphometric analysis was carried out to compare bone-to-implant contacts (BIC) and crestal bone loss (CBL). RESULTS: There were not significant differences in CBL between groups when the implants were placed at subcrestal bone level (p > 0.05), meanwhile the CBL was significantly higher for both groups when the implants were inserted at crestal level (p < 0.05). All implants were osseointegrated presenting a minimum BIC percentage of 56%. The major percentages of BIC were found for both groups at subcrestal level (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this experimental study may be concluded that the implant diameter does not affect the CBL. BIC values are affected by implant diameter and design been higher for narrow implants compared to mini-implants. Subcrestal insertion of both implants favors crestal bone preservation but crestal insertion of both designs is associated with crestal bone loss CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study shows that narrow implants protect peri-implant crestal bone.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration and crestal bone loss (CBL) in two implant designs with different diameters (Mini Sky® and Narrow Sky®) implants, placed at different vertical levels at healed canine ridges. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The second, third, and fourth mandibular premolars of six Beagle dogs were extracted bilaterally. After 2 months healing, four implants divided into two groups according to their diameters (i.e., Narrow Sky® and Mini Sky®) were placed in each hemi-mandible at the level of the bone crest or 2 mm subcrestally. The animals were euthanized at 12 weeks and undecalcified samples were processed for histology. Histomorphometric analysis was carried out to compare bone-to-implant contacts (BIC) and crestal bone loss (CBL). RESULTS: There were not significant differences in CBL between groups when the implants were placed at subcrestal bone level (p > 0.05), meanwhile the CBL was significantly higher for both groups when the implants were inserted at crestal level (p < 0.05). All implants were osseointegrated presenting a minimum BIC percentage of 56%. The major percentages of BIC were found for both groups at subcrestal level (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this experimental study may be concluded that the implant diameter does not affect the CBL. BIC values are affected by implant diameter and design been higher for narrow implants compared to mini-implants. Subcrestal insertion of both implants favors crestal bone preservation but crestal insertion of both designs is associated with crestal bone loss CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study shows that narrow implants protect peri-implant crestal bone.
Authors: Marco Caneva; Luiz Antonio Salata; Sergio Scombatti de Souza; Eriberto Bressan; Daniele Botticelli; Niklaus P Lang Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2010-05-09 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Bruno Negri; José Luis Calvo-Guirado; José Eduardo Maté Sánchez de Val; Rafael Arcesio Delgado Ruiz; María Piedad Ramírez Fernández; Gerardo Gómez Moreno; Antonio Aguilar Salvatierra; Javier Guardia; Fernando Muñoz Guzón Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Bruno Negri; Jose Luis Calvo-Guirado; Guillermo Pardo-Zamora; Ma Piedad Ramírez-Fernández; Rafael Arcesio Delgado-Ruíz; Fernando Muñoz-Guzón Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: José L Calvo-Guirado; Ana Boquete-Castro; Bruno Negri; Rafael Delgado Ruiz; Gerardo Gómez-Moreno; Giovanna Iezzi Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Ana Boquete-Castro; Gerardo Gómez-Moreno; Antonio Aguilar-Salvatierra; Rafael A Delgado-Ruiz; Georgios E Romanos; José Luis Calvo-Guirado Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Maria Ángeles Pérez-Albacete Martínez; Carlos Pérez-Albacete Martínez; José Eduardo Maté Sánchez De Val; María Luisa Ramos Oltra; Manuel Fernández Domínguez; Jose Luis Calvo Guirado Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: José Luis Calvo-Guirado; Raúl Jiménez-Soto; Carlos Pérez Albacete-Martínez; Manuel Fernández-Domínguez; Sérgio Alexandre Gehrke; José Eduardo Maté-Sánchez de Val Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 3.623