Warunee Pluemsakunthai1, Bach Le, Shohei Kasugai. 1. *Postgraduate Student, Department of Oral Implantology and Regenerative Dental Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan. †Clinical Fellow, Department of Prosthodontics, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. ‡Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. §Professor, Department of Oral Implantology and Regenerative Dental Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The buccal bone resorption and the deformation of soft tissue contour are major problems of immediate implant treatment. This study aims to examine the changes of alveolar bone and soft tissue after immediate implant placement in different buccal gap distances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight implants were placed randomly in the mandibular premolar sockets of 6 hybrid dogs with 1, 2, and 3 mm buccal gap distances. The dogs were killed after 2 or 4 months for morphometric and microcomputed tomography analyses. DISCUSSION: After 2 months, the 3-mm group had the highest buccal bone volume (BV), buccal bone/soft tissue thickness, and the lowest bone resorption. The wider the buccal gap, the more buccal bone and soft tissue were formed in this experimental setting. After 4 months, the buccal BV had decreased significantly in the 1-mm and the 2-mm groups, whereas the 3-mm group resisted to buccal bone resorption. This difference was more pronounced at the crest. CONCLUSION: The 3 mm is the optimal gap distance among the groups examined, which drastically influences the healing of bone and soft tissue surrounding the implants.
INTRODUCTION: The buccal bone resorption and the deformation of soft tissue contour are major problems of immediate implant treatment. This study aims to examine the changes of alveolar bone and soft tissue after immediate implant placement in different buccal gap distances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight implants were placed randomly in the mandibular premolar sockets of 6 hybrid dogs with 1, 2, and 3 mm buccal gap distances. The dogs were killed after 2 or 4 months for morphometric and microcomputed tomography analyses. DISCUSSION: After 2 months, the 3-mm group had the highest buccal bone volume (BV), buccal bone/soft tissue thickness, and the lowest bone resorption. The wider the buccal gap, the more buccal bone and soft tissue were formed in this experimental setting. After 4 months, the buccal BV had decreased significantly in the 1-mm and the 2-mm groups, whereas the 3-mm group resisted to buccal bone resorption. This difference was more pronounced at the crest. CONCLUSION: The 3 mm is the optimal gap distance among the groups examined, which drastically influences the healing of bone and soft tissue surrounding the implants.