de Oliveira Rafael R, Novaes Arthur B, Papalexiou Vula, Muglia Valdir A, Taba Mário
Department of Bucco Maxillo, Facial Surgery and Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Oral Implantol. 2006;32(5):218-27. doi: 10.1563/793.1.
Implant esthetics has been the focus of attention for the past decade, and one vital issue is the effect of interimplant distance on interimplant papilla formation and crestal bone loss. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of 1, 2, and 3 mm of interimplant distance on papilla formation and crestal resorption in submerged and nonsubmerged Ankylos implants after prosthetic restoration. Bilateral mandibular premolars of 7 dogs were extracted, and after 12 weeks each dog received 8 implants. Implants were placed so that 3 interimplant distances were created at 1 mm (group 1), 2 mm (group 2), and 3 mm (group 3). The sides and the position of the groups were randomly selected. Twelve weeks after placement, the implants received metallic prostheses that allowed 5 mm of space between the prosthetic contact point (CP) and the crestal bone (CB). After 8 weeks, the distance between the CP and the papilla (CP-P) and the gingival height at the distal proximal aspect of the prosthesis (CP-DE) was clinically measured. Radiographic images were obtained to measure the distance of the CP to the CB within the interimplant surfaces (CP-IP) and adjacent to the edentulous surfaces (CP-ED). The clinical measurement of CP-P for submerged and nonsubmerged implants was 3.57+/-1.17 mm and 3.10+/-0.82 mm for group 1, 3.57+/-0.78 mm and 3.16+/- 0.87 mm for group 2, and 3.35+/- 0.55 mm and 3.07+/-0.93 mm for group 3. The CP-DE was 3.25+/-0.77 mm for submerged and 2.78+/- 0.64 mm for nonsubmerged implants. The CP-IP for the submerged and nonsubmerged implants was 6.91+/-0.95 mm and 7.68+/-2.73 mm for group 1, 7.46+/-1.43 mm and 5.87+/-1.71 mm for group 2, and 7.72+/-0.81 mm and 7.59+/-1.33 mm for group 3. The CP-ED was 6.77+/-1.33 mm for submerged implants and 6.03+/-1.58 mm for nonsubmerged implants. There were no statistical significant differences for any of the measured parameters. We conclude that when the distance from the CP to the CB was 5 mm, interimplant distances of 1 to 3 mm did not affect papilla formation or crestal resorption of submerged or nonsubmerged implants in the dog model.
种植体美学在过去十年一直是关注焦点，一个关键问题是种植体间距离对种植体间龈乳头形成和牙槽嵴骨吸收的影响。本研究旨在评估种植体间距离为1mm、2mm和3mm对Ankylos种植体在修复后，于潜入式和非潜入式状态下龈乳头形成和牙槽嵴吸收的影响。拔除7只犬的双侧下颌前磨牙，12周后每只犬植入8颗种植体。种植体植入时使三组种植体间距离分别为1mm（第1组）、2mm（第2组）和3mm（第3组）。组别的位置和侧别随机选择。植入12周后，种植体安装金属修复体，使修复体接触点（CP）与牙槽嵴顶骨（CB）之间有5mm间隙。8周后，临床测量CP与龈乳头之间的距离（CP-P）以及修复体远中近中面处的牙龈高度（CP-DE）。获取影像学图像以测量CP在种植体间表面（CP-IP）和缺牙表面相邻处（CP-ED）到CB的距离。第1组潜入式和非潜入式种植体CP-P的临床测量值分别为3.57±1.17mm和3.10±0.82mm，第2组分别为3.57±0.78mm和3.16±0.87mm，第3组分别为3.35±0.55mm和3.07±0.93mm。CP-DE潜入式种植体为3.25±0.77mm，非潜入式种植体为2.78±0.64mm。第1组潜入式和非潜入式种植体CP-IP分别为6.91±0.95mm和7.68±2.73mm，第2组分别为7.46±1.43mm和5.87±1.71mm，第3组分别为7.72±0.81mm和7.59±1.33mm。CP-ED潜入式种植体为6.77±1.33mm，非潜入式种植体为6.03±1.58mm。所有测量参数均无统计学显著差异。我们得出结论，当CP到CB的距离为5mm时，在犬模型中，1至3mm的种植体间距离不影响潜入式或非潜入式种植体的龈乳头形成或牙槽嵴吸收。
