Department of General and Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Department of Pharmacological Interactions in Dentistry, Dental School, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23(2):236-244. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02290.x. Epub 2011 Sep 5.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone remodeling dynamics after immediate implant placement at different levels in relation to the crestal bone with two different implant designs in beagle dogs.
The mandibular second, third and fourth premolars of six beagle dogs were extracted bilaterally and three implants were immediately placed in the hemi-arches of each dog. Randomly, three cylindrical and three tapered implants were inserted crestally (control group) or 2 mm subcrestally (test group). Both groups were treated with a minimal mucoperiosteal flap elevation approach. A gap from the buccal cortical wall to the implant was always left. Three dogs were allowed a 4-week submerged healing period and the other three an 8-week submerged healing period. The animals were sacrificed and samples were obtained. Biopsies were processed for ground sectioning. Histomorphometric analysis was carried out in order to compare BIC, de novo bone formation and bone remodeling.
All implants osseointegrated clinically and histologically. Healing patterns examined microscopically at 4 and 8 weeks for both groups (crestal and subcrestal) yielded similar qualitative bone findings. The total BIC mean value for the crestal group was 36.48 ± 3.4% and for the subcrestal group was 41.46 ± 4.2%. The mean percentage of newly formed BIC was greater with the cylindrical implant design (46.06 ± 1.09%) than with the tapered design (33.89 ± 1.72%). There was less bone resorption in the subcrestal group (test) than crestal group (control).
These findings suggest that apical positioning of the top of the implant does not jeopardize bone crest and peri-implant tissue remodeling. However, less resorption of the lingual crest may be expected when implants are placed 2 mm subcrestally. Moreover, higher BIC values were found in cylindrical implants placed subcrestally.
本研究旨在评估两种不同种植体设计在下颌犬中不同水平即刻种植体植入后与牙槽嵴骨的骨-种植体接触(BIC)和骨重塑动力学。
将 6 只比格犬的下颌第二、第三和第四前磨牙双侧拔除,并在每只犬的半弓中立即放置 3 个种植体。随机将 3 个圆柱形和 3 个锥形种植体植入牙槽嵴(对照组)或 2mm 牙槽嵴下(实验组)。两组均采用最小的黏膜骨瓣提升方法处理。始终在颊侧皮质骨壁和种植体之间留有间隙。其中 3 只狗接受 4 周的埋置愈合期,另外 3 只狗接受 8 周的埋置愈合期。处死动物并取样本。对活检进行研磨切片。进行组织形态计量学分析以比较 BIC、新骨形成和骨重塑。
所有种植体均临床和组织学上骨整合。两组(牙槽嵴和牙槽嵴下)在 4 周和 8 周时进行的显微镜下愈合模式检查得出了相似的定性骨发现。对于牙槽嵴组,总 BIC 的平均值为 36.48±3.4%,对于牙槽嵴下组,总 BIC 的平均值为 41.46±4.2%。与锥形设计(33.89±1.72%)相比,圆柱形种植体设计的新形成 BIC 的平均百分比更大(46.06±1.09%)。牙槽嵴下组(实验组)的骨吸收量小于牙槽嵴组(对照组)。
这些发现表明,种植体顶部的根尖位置不会危及牙槽嵴和种植体周围组织的重塑。然而,当种植体放置在牙槽嵴下 2mm 时,预计颊侧嵴的吸收会减少。此外,在下牙槽嵴放置的圆柱形种植体的 BIC 值更高。