File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Influence of lateral pressure to the implant bed on osseointegration: an experimental study in dogs.
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleInfluence of lateral pressure to the implant bed on osseointegration: an experimental study in dogs.
 
AuthorsPantani, F1
Botticelli, D2
Garcia Jr, IR1
Salata, LA5
Borges, GJ4
Lang, NP3
 
Issue Date2010
 
CitationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2010, v. 21 n. 11, p. 1264-1270 [How to Cite?]
 
AbstractTo study osseointegration and bone-level changes at implants installed using either a standard or a reduced diameter bur for implant bed preparation. In six Labrador dogs, the first and second premolars were extracted bilaterally. Subsequently, mesial roots of the first molars were endodontically treated and distal roots, including the corresponding part of the crown, were extracted. After 3 months of healing, flaps were elevated and recipient sites were prepared in all experimental sites. The control site was prepared using a standard procedure, while the test site was prepared using a drill with a 0.2 mm reduced diameter than the standard one used in the contra-lateral side. After 4 months of healing, the animals were euthanized and biopsies were obtained for histological processing and evaluation. With the exception of one implant that was lost, all implants were integrated in mineralized bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at control as well as at test sites (buccal aspect ∼1 mm). The most coronal contact of bone-to-implant was located between 1.2 and 1.6 mm at the test and between 1.3 and 1.7 mm at the control sites. Bone-to-implant contact percentage was between 49% and 67%. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the outcome variables. After 4 months of healing, lateral pressure to the implant bed as reflected by higher insertion torques (36 vs. 15 Ncm in the premolar and 19 vs. 7 Ncm in the molar regions) did not affect the bone-to-implant contact. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
ISSN1600-0501
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.154
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000282688400008
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorPantani, F
 
dc.contributor.authorBotticelli, D
 
dc.contributor.authorGarcia Jr, IR
 
dc.contributor.authorSalata, LA
 
dc.contributor.authorBorges, GJ
 
dc.contributor.authorLang, NP
 
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:26:46Z
 
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:26:46Z
 
dc.date.issued2010
 
dc.description.abstractTo study osseointegration and bone-level changes at implants installed using either a standard or a reduced diameter bur for implant bed preparation. In six Labrador dogs, the first and second premolars were extracted bilaterally. Subsequently, mesial roots of the first molars were endodontically treated and distal roots, including the corresponding part of the crown, were extracted. After 3 months of healing, flaps were elevated and recipient sites were prepared in all experimental sites. The control site was prepared using a standard procedure, while the test site was prepared using a drill with a 0.2 mm reduced diameter than the standard one used in the contra-lateral side. After 4 months of healing, the animals were euthanized and biopsies were obtained for histological processing and evaluation. With the exception of one implant that was lost, all implants were integrated in mineralized bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at control as well as at test sites (buccal aspect ∼1 mm). The most coronal contact of bone-to-implant was located between 1.2 and 1.6 mm at the test and between 1.3 and 1.7 mm at the control sites. Bone-to-implant contact percentage was between 49% and 67%. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the outcome variables. After 4 months of healing, lateral pressure to the implant bed as reflected by higher insertion torques (36 vs. 15 Ncm in the premolar and 19 vs. 7 Ncm in the molar regions) did not affect the bone-to-implant contact. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2010, v. 21 n. 11, p. 1264-1270 [How to Cite?]
 
dc.identifier.epage1270
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000282688400008
 
dc.identifier.issn1600-0501
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.154
 
dc.identifier.issue11
 
dc.identifier.pmid20626423
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-79952278153
 
dc.identifier.spage1264
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154659
 
dc.identifier.volume21
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.relation.ispartofClinical oral implants research
 
dc.subject.meshAnimals
 
dc.subject.meshBicuspid
 
dc.subject.meshDental Implantation, Endosseous - Methods
 
dc.subject.meshDental Implants
 
dc.subject.meshDental Prosthesis Design
 
dc.subject.meshDental Stress Analysis
 
dc.subject.meshDogs
 
dc.subject.meshImplants, Experimental
 
dc.subject.meshMandible - Surgery
 
dc.subject.meshMolar
 
dc.subject.meshOsseointegration - Physiology
 
dc.subject.meshPhotomicrography
 
dc.subject.meshPressure
 
dc.subject.meshTooth Socket - Surgery
 
dc.subject.meshTorque
 
dc.subject.meshWound Healing - Physiology
 
dc.titleInfluence of lateral pressure to the implant bed on osseointegration: an experimental study in dogs.
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Pantani, F</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Botticelli, D</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Garcia Jr, IR</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Salata, LA</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Borges, GJ</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lang, NP</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2012-08-08T08:26:46Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2012-08-08T08:26:46Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2010</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2010, v. 21 n. 11, p. 1264-1270</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>1600-0501</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/154659</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>To study osseointegration and bone-level changes at implants installed using either a standard or a reduced diameter bur for implant bed preparation. In six Labrador dogs, the first and second premolars were extracted bilaterally. Subsequently, mesial roots of the first molars were endodontically treated and distal roots, including the corresponding part of the crown, were extracted. After 3 months of healing, flaps were elevated and recipient sites were prepared in all experimental sites. The control site was prepared using a standard procedure, while the test site was prepared using a drill with a 0.2 mm reduced diameter than the standard one used in the contra-lateral side. After 4 months of healing, the animals were euthanized and biopsies were obtained for histological processing and evaluation. With the exception of one implant that was lost, all implants were integrated in mineralized bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at control as well as at test sites (buccal aspect &#8764;1 mm). The most coronal contact of bone-to-implant was located between 1.2 and 1.6 mm at the test and between 1.3 and 1.7 mm at the control sites. Bone-to-implant contact percentage was between 49% and 67%. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the outcome variables. After 4 months of healing, lateral pressure to the implant bed as reflected by higher insertion torques (36 vs. 15 Ncm in the premolar and 19 vs. 7 Ncm in the molar regions) did not affect the bone-to-implant contact. &#169; 2010 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<relation.ispartof>Clinical oral implants research</relation.ispartof>
<subject.mesh>Animals</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Bicuspid</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - Methods</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Implants</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Prosthesis Design</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Stress Analysis</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dogs</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Implants, Experimental</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Mandible - Surgery</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Molar</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Osseointegration - Physiology</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Photomicrography</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Pressure</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Tooth Socket - Surgery</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Torque</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Wound Healing - Physiology</subject.mesh>
<title>Influence of lateral pressure to the implant bed on osseointegration: an experimental study in dogs.</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.pmid>20626423</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-79952278153</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.volume>21</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>11</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>1264</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>1270</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000282688400008</identifier.isi>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista
  2. ARDEC
  3. The University of Hong Kong
  4. Universidade Federal de Goias
  5. Universidade de Sao Paulo