J Sanz-Esporrin1,2, R Di Raimondo3, R Pla3, F Luengo3, F Vignoletti3, J Núñez3, G J Antonoglou3, J Blanco4, M Sanz3,5. 1. Postgraduate Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. javier.sanz.esporrin@ucm.es. 2. ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases) Research Group, University Complutense of Madrid, Plaza Ramon y Cajal s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain. javier.sanz.esporrin@ucm.es. 3. Postgraduate Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 4. Periodontology Unit, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 5. ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases) Research Group, University Complutense of Madrid, Plaza Ramon y Cajal s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this experimental in vivo investigation was to evaluate the influence of modifying the implant surface by adding a monolayer of multi-phosphonate molecules on the development of experimental peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight beagle dogs received 5 tests and 5 control implants each following a split-mouth design 3 months after premolar and molar extraction. On the most mesial implant of each side, a 3-mm buccal dehiscence was artificially created. Experimental peri-implantitis was induced by silk ligatures over a 4-month period; after ligature removal, peri-implantitis was left to progress for another 4 months without plaque control. Clinical, histological, and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Radiographically, both implant groups showed a similar bone loss (BL) at the end of the induction and progression phases. BL measured on the histological sections of the test and control groups was 3.14 ± 0.42 mm and 3.26 ± 0.28 mm, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The remaining buccal bone to implant contact (bBIC) percentage of the test and control groups was 59.38 ± 18.62 and 47.44 ± 20.46%, respectively; the difference, however, was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Bone loss observed at dehiscent sites compared to non-dehiscent ones showed no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of a monophosphonate layer to a moderately rough implant surface did not affect development of experimental peri-implantitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Influence of implant surface on peri-implantitis may condition implant selection by the clinician, especially on patients with disease risk factors. In that sense, monophosphate layer implants do not show higher peri-implantitis risk than control implants.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this experimental in vivo investigation was to evaluate the influence of modifying the implant surface by adding a monolayer of multi-phosphonate molecules on the development of experimental peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight beagle dogs received 5 tests and 5 control implants each following a split-mouth design 3 months after premolar and molar extraction. On the most mesial implant of each side, a 3-mm buccal dehiscence was artificially created. Experimental peri-implantitis was induced by silk ligatures over a 4-month period; after ligature removal, peri-implantitis was left to progress for another 4 months without plaque control. Clinical, histological, and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Radiographically, both implant groups showed a similar bone loss (BL) at the end of the induction and progression phases. BL measured on the histological sections of the test and control groups was 3.14 ± 0.42 mm and 3.26 ± 0.28 mm, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The remaining buccal bone to implant contact (bBIC) percentage of the test and control groups was 59.38 ± 18.62 and 47.44 ± 20.46%, respectively; the difference, however, was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Bone loss observed at dehiscent sites compared to non-dehiscent ones showed no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of a monophosphonate layer to a moderately rough implant surface did not affect development of experimental peri-implantitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Influence of implant surface on peri-implantitis may condition implant selection by the clinician, especially on patients with disease risk factors. In that sense, monophosphate layer implants do not show higher peri-implantitis risk than control implants.
Authors: Carine Viornery; Harald L Guenther; Björn-Owe Aronsson; Péter Péchy; Pierre Descouts; Michael Grätzel Journal: J Biomed Mater Res Date: 2002-10