File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Osteogenesis at implants without primary bone contact: an experimental study in dogs

TitleOsteogenesis at implants without primary bone contact: an experimental study in dogs
Authors
KeywordsAnimal study
Bone contact
Bone healing
Contact osteogenesis
Defect
Issue Date2012
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012, v. 23 n. 5, p. 542-549 How to Cite?
AbstractAIM: To evaluate the healing at implants with a moderately rough surface placed and stabilized in recipient sites of dimensions deeper and larger than that of the implants to avoid any contact between parent bone and the implant. MATERIAL and METHODS: In six Labrador dogs, premolars and first molars were extracted bilaterally in the mandible. After 3 months of healing, mucoperiosteal full-thickness flaps were elevated and the premolar area of the alveolar bony crest was selected. Three recipient sites were prepared to place three implants. One implant was used as control. The other two were placed in recipient sites which left a circumferentially and periapical prepared defect of 0.7 mm (small) and 1.2 mm (large), respectively. All implants were stabilized with passive fixation plates to maintain the implants stable and without any contact with the implant bed. After 3 months of submerged healing, the animals were sacrificed. Ground sections were prepared and analyzed histomorphometrically. RESULTS: The BIC% was 5.3% and 0.3% for implants placed in small and large defect sites, respectively, whereas it was 46.1% for control implants. The differences were statistically significant. The width of the residual defects was 0.4 and 0.5 mm at the small and large defects, respectively. An approximately 0.09 mm layer of dense connective tissue (DCT) rich in fibers and fibroblast-like cells was observed adherent to the implant surfaces. The percentage of implant surface covered by DCT was 92.8% and 95.6% at the small and large defects, respectively. CONCLUSION: Osseointegration was observed at the test sites, and the dimensions of the defects influenced the outcomes. However, the degree of osseointegration at both small and large defects was very low compared with the control sites.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/146823
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.464
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID
Funding AgencyGrant Number
Sweden & Martina SRL, Due Carrare, Padova, Italy
ARDEC, Ariminum Odontologica SRL, Rimini, Italy
Funding Information:

This study has been supported by a grant from Sweden & Martina SRL, Due Carrare, Padova, Italy and by ARDEC, Ariminum Odontologica SRL, Rimini, Italy. The competent contributions of Mr. Sebastiao Bianco (USP - Faculty of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto - University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil) in the histological processing, of Dr Sara Ricci for her help in the surgical sessions and of Engineer Enrico Babetto (Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, Padova, Italy) for the support in the preparation of the positioning devices are highly appreciated. All the authors declare to have no conflict of interest with the materials used in the present study.

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSivolella, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorBressan, Een_US
dc.contributor.authorSalata, LAen_US
dc.contributor.authorUrrutia, ZAen_US
dc.contributor.authorLang, NPen_US
dc.contributor.authorBotticelli, Den_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-23T05:28:04Z-
dc.date.available2012-05-23T05:28:04Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2012, v. 23 n. 5, p. 542-549en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/146823-
dc.description.abstractAIM: To evaluate the healing at implants with a moderately rough surface placed and stabilized in recipient sites of dimensions deeper and larger than that of the implants to avoid any contact between parent bone and the implant. MATERIAL and METHODS: In six Labrador dogs, premolars and first molars were extracted bilaterally in the mandible. After 3 months of healing, mucoperiosteal full-thickness flaps were elevated and the premolar area of the alveolar bony crest was selected. Three recipient sites were prepared to place three implants. One implant was used as control. The other two were placed in recipient sites which left a circumferentially and periapical prepared defect of 0.7 mm (small) and 1.2 mm (large), respectively. All implants were stabilized with passive fixation plates to maintain the implants stable and without any contact with the implant bed. After 3 months of submerged healing, the animals were sacrificed. Ground sections were prepared and analyzed histomorphometrically. RESULTS: The BIC% was 5.3% and 0.3% for implants placed in small and large defect sites, respectively, whereas it was 46.1% for control implants. The differences were statistically significant. The width of the residual defects was 0.4 and 0.5 mm at the small and large defects, respectively. An approximately 0.09 mm layer of dense connective tissue (DCT) rich in fibers and fibroblast-like cells was observed adherent to the implant surfaces. The percentage of implant surface covered by DCT was 92.8% and 95.6% at the small and large defects, respectively. CONCLUSION: Osseointegration was observed at the test sites, and the dimensions of the defects influenced the outcomes. However, the degree of osseointegration at both small and large defects was very low compared with the control sites.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_US
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.comen_US
dc.subjectAnimal study-
dc.subjectBone contact-
dc.subjectBone healing-
dc.subjectContact osteogenesis-
dc.subjectDefect-
dc.titleOsteogenesis at implants without primary bone contact: an experimental study in dogsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP: nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailBotticelli, D: daniele.botticelli@ardec.it-
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02423.x-
dc.identifier.pmid22335282-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84859707030-
dc.identifier.hkuros199419en_US
dc.identifier.volume23en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.spage542en_US
dc.identifier.epage549en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000302606800004-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats