Literature DB >> 26927486

Effect of Osteotomy Preparation on Osseointegration of Immediately Loaded, Tapered Dental Implants.

A Stavropoulos1, D Cochran2, M Obrecht3, B E Pippenger3, M Dard4.   

Abstract

The aim of the present preclinical in vivo study was to evaluate whether a modified "drill-only" protocol, involving slight underpreparation of the implant site, may have an effect on aspects of osseointegration of a novel bone-level tapered implant, compared with the "standard drilling" protocol involving taping and profiling of the marginal aspect of the implant socket. In each side of the edentulated and completely healed mandible of 11 minipigs, 2 tapered implants (8 mm long × 4.1 mm Ø, BLT; Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were installed either with the drill-only or the standard drilling protocol. Significantly lower average insertion torque values were recorded for the standard drilling protocol group (52 ± 29 Ncm) compared with the drill-only group (70 ± 27 Ncm) (t test, P ≤ 0.05); no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups regarding implant stability, by means of resonance frequency analysis (75 ± 8 vs. 75 ± 6, respectively). Half of the implants were immediately loaded and the rest were submerged, providing observation times of 8 or 4 wk, respectively. Non-decalcified histological and histomorphometric analysis of the implants with surrounding tissues showed no significant differences between the 2 drilling protocols regarding the distance from the implant platform to the first coronal bone-to-implant contact (f-BIC), the total bone-to-implant contact (BIC) as a percentage of the total implant perimeter, and the bone density in an area extending 1 mm laterally from the implant (BATA) within 2 rectangular regions of interest (ROIs) 4 mm in height, representing the coronal (parallel-walled) and apical (tapered) aspect of the implant (ROI 1 and ROI 2, respectively) in non-submerged implants. In general, marginal peri-implant bone levels were at or slightly apical to the implant platform, and large amounts of bone-to-implant contact were observed. In contrast, immediately loaded implants placed with the drill-only protocol showed statistically significantly lower BIC values (66% ± 13.7%) compared with those installed with the standard drilling protocol (74.8% ± 11.2%) (P = 0.018). In addition, although marginal bone levels were in most of the immediately loaded implants at or slightly apical to the implant platform, some of the implants installed with the drill-only protocol showed marginal bone loss and crater formation. Thus, in this model system, even slight underpreparation of the implant socket appeared to compromise osseointegration of immediately loaded bone-level tapered implants. © International & American Associations for Dental Research 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BLT; drill protocol; preclinical; primary stability; tapered implant; underpreperation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26927486     DOI: 10.1177/0022034515624446

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Dent Res        ISSN: 0895-9374


  9 in total

1.  Biophysical regulation of osteotomy healing: An animal study.

Authors:  Liao Wang; Maziar Aghvami; John Brunski; Jill Helms
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 3.932

2.  Comparison of bone-to-implant contact and bone volume around implants placed with or without site preparation: a histomorphometric study in rabbits.

Authors:  Merav Folkman; Alina Becker; Isabelle Meinster; Mahmoud Masri; Zeev Ormianer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  A New Site Preparation Protocol That Supports Bone Quality Evaluation and Provides Predictable Implant Insertion Torque.

Authors:  Stefan Velikov; Cristiano Susin; Peter Heuberger; Ainara Irastorza-Landa
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 4.241

4.  Effects of Different Undersizing Site Preparations on Implant Stability.

Authors:  Bernardo Ferreira Lemos; Paula Lopez-Jarana; Carlos Falcao; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; Javier Gil; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Mariano Herrero-Climent
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  The minipig intraoral dental implant model: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marta Liliana Musskopf; Amanda Finger Stadler; Ulf Me Wikesjö; Cristiano Susin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Does Oral Implant Design Affect Marginal Bone Loss? Results of a Parallel-Group Randomized Controlled Equivalence Trial.

Authors:  Benedikt C Spies; Maria Bateli; Ghada Ben Rahal; Marin Christmann; Kirstin Vach; Ralf-Joachim Kohal
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Retrospective cohort study of 4,591 dental implants: Analysis of risk indicators for bone loss and prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Authors:  David French; H Michelle Grandin; Ronen Ofec
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 6.993

8.  A novel fully tapered, self-cutting tissue-level implant: non-inferiority study in minipigs.

Authors:  Edgard El Chaar; Algirdas Puisys; Itai Sabbag; Benjamin Bellón; Aikaterini Georgantza; Wayne Kye; Benjamin E Pippenger
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Peri-implant bone preservation of a novel, self-cutting, and fully tapered implant in the healed crestal ridge of minipigs: submerged vs. transgingival healing.

Authors:  Helena Francisco; Gary Finelle; Fabien Bornert; Rebecca Sandgren; Valentin Herber; Nils Warfving; Benjamin E Pippenger
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.573

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.