Hyun-Chang Lim1, Jung-Seok Lee2, Seong-Ho Choi2, Ui-Won Jung2. 1. Department of Periodontology, Kyung Hee University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of overlaying titanium mesh (TM) with an adjunctive collagen membrane (CM) for preserving the buccal bone when used in association with immediate implant placement in dogs. METHODS: Immediate implant placements were performed in the mesial sockets of the third premolars of five dogs. At one site the TM was attached to the fixture with the aid of its own stabilizers and then covered by a CM (CM group), while the contralateral site received only TM (TM group). Biopsy specimens were retrieved for histologic and histomorphometric analyses after 16 weeks. RESULTS: All samples exhibited pronounced buccal bone resorption, and a high rate of TM exposure was noted (in three and four cases of the five samples in each of the TM and CM groups, respectively). A dense fibrous tissue with little vascularity or cellularity had infiltrated through the pores of the TM irrespective of the presence of a CM. The distances between the fixture platform and the first bone-implant contact and the bone crest did not differ significantly between the TM and CM groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the additional use of a CM over TM does not offer added benefit for mucosal healing and buccal bone preservation.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of overlaying titanium mesh (TM) with an adjunctive collagen membrane (CM) for preserving the buccal bone when used in association with immediate implant placement in dogs. METHODS: Immediate implant placements were performed in the mesial sockets of the third premolars of five dogs. At one site the TM was attached to the fixture with the aid of its own stabilizers and then covered by a CM (CM group), while the contralateral site received only TM (TM group). Biopsy specimens were retrieved for histologic and histomorphometric analyses after 16 weeks. RESULTS: All samples exhibited pronounced buccal bone resorption, and a high rate of TM exposure was noted (in three and four cases of the five samples in each of the TM and CM groups, respectively). A dense fibrous tissue with little vascularity or cellularity had infiltrated through the pores of the TM irrespective of the presence of a CM. The distances between the fixture platform and the first bone-implant contact and the bone crest did not differ significantly between the TM and CM groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the additional use of a CM over TM does not offer added benefit for mucosal healing and buccal bone preservation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone regeneration; Bone resorption; Dental implants; Postoperative complications; Tooth extraction