Hard and soft tissue changes around implants installed in regular-sized and reduced alveolar bony ridges. An experimental study in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To study bony and soft tissue changes at implants installed in alveolar bony ridges of different widths. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 6 Labrador dogs, the mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted, and a buccal defect was created in the left side at the third and fourth premolars by removing the buccal bone and the inter-radicular and interdental septa. Three months after tooth extraction, full-thickness mucoperiosteal flaps were elevated, and implants were installed, two at the reduced (test) and two at the regular-sized ridges (control). Narrow or wide abutments were affixed to the implants. After 3 months, biopsies were harvested, and ground sections prepared for histological evaluation. RESULTS: A higher vertical buccal bony crest resorption was found at the test (1.5 ± 0.7 mm and 1.0 ± 0.7 mm) compared to the control implants (1.0 ± 0.5 mm and 0.7 ± 0.4 mm), for both wide and narrow abutment sites. A higher horizontal alveolar resorption was identified at the control compared to the test implants. The difference was significant for narrow abutment sites. The peri-implant mucosa was more coronally positioned at the narrow abutment, in the test sites, while for the control sites, the mucosal adaptation was more coronal at the wide abutment sites. These differences, however, did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Implants installed in regular-sized alveolar ridges had a higher horizontal, but a lower vertical buccal bony crest resorption compared to implants installed in reduced alveolar ridges. Narrow abutments in reduced ridges as well as wide abutments in regular-sized ridges yielded less soft tissue recession compared to their counterparts.

Influence of buccal bony crest width on marginal dimensions of peri-implant hard and soft tissues after implant installation. An experimental study in dogs.

AIM: To evaluate the influence of the width of the buccal bony wall on hard and soft tissue dimensions following implant installation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mandibular premolars and first molars of six Labrador dogs were extracted bilaterally. After 3 months of healing, two recipient sites, one on each side of the mandible, were prepared in such a way as to obtain a buccal bony ridge width of about 2 mm in the right (control) and 1 mm in the left sides (test), respectively. Implants were installed with the coronal margin flush with the buccal alveolar bony crest. Abutments were placed and the flaps were sutured to allow a non-submerged healing. After 3 months, the animals were euthanized and ground sections obtained. RESULTS: All implants were completely osseointegrated. In respect to the coronal rough margin of the implant, the most coronal bone-to-implant contact was apically located 1.04 ± 0.91 and 0.94 ± 0.87 mm at the test and control sites, respectively, whereas the top of the bony crest was located 0.30 ± 0.40 mm at the test and 0.57 ± 0.49 mm at the control sites. No statistically significant differences were found. A larger horizontal bone resorption, however, evaluated 1 mm apically to the rough margin, was found at the control (1.1 ± 0.7 mm) compared to the test (0.3 ± 0.3 mm) sites, the difference being statistically significant. A thin peri-implant mucosa (2.4-2.6 mm) was found at implant installation while, after 3 months of healing, a biological width of 3.90-4.40 mm was observed with no statistically significant differences between control and test sites. CONCLUSIONS: A width of the buccal bony wall of 1or 2 mm at implant sites yielded similar results after 3 months of healing in relation of hard tissue and soft tissues dimensions after implant installation.

Effect of mismatching abutments on implants with wider platforms--an experimental study in dogs.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of mismatching abutments on implants with a wider platform on the peri-implant hard tissue remodeling and the soft tissue dimensions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mandibular premolars and first molars of six Labrador dogs were extracted bilaterally. After 3 months of healing, one tapered implant was installed on each side of the mandibular molar region with the implant shoulder placed at the level of the buccal alveolar bony crest. On the right side of the mandible, an abutment of reduced diameter in relation to the platform of the implant was used, creating a mismatch of 0.85 mm (test), whereas an abutment of the same diameter of the implant platform was affixed in the left side of the mandible (control). The flaps were sutured to allow a non-submerged healing. After 4 months, the animals were sacrificed and ground sections were obtained for histometric assessment. RESULTS: All implants were completely osseo-integrated. Bone levels were superior at the test than at the control sites. However, statistically significant differences were found only at the buccal and proximal aspects. The soft tissue vertical dimension was higher at the control compared with the test sites. However, statistically significant differences were demonstrated only at the buccal aspects. CONCLUSIONS: A mismatch of 0.85 mm between the implant and the abutment yielded more coronal levels of bone-to-implant contact and a reduced height of the peri-implant soft tissue (biologic width), especially at the buccal aspect, if the implant shoulder was placed flush with the level of the buccal alveolar bony crest.

Deproteinized bovine bone mineral in marginal defects at implants installed immediately into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs.

AIM: To evaluate the influence of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) particles concomitant with the placement of a collagen membrane on alveolar ridge preservation and on osseointegration of implants placed into alveolar sockets immediately after tooth extraction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The pulp tissue of the mesial roots of (3) P(3) was removed in six Labrador dogs and the root canals were filled. Flaps were elevated in the right side of the mandible, and the buccal and lingual alveolar bony plates were exposed. The third premolar was hemi-sectioned and the distal root was removed. A recipient site was prepared and an implant was placed lingually. After implant installation, defects of about 0.6 mm wide and 3.1 mm depth resulted at the buccal aspects of the implant, both at the test and at the control sites. The same surgical procedures and measurements were performed on the left side of the mandible. However, DBBM particles with a size of 0.25-1 mm were placed into the remaining defect concomitant with the placement of a collagen membrane. RESULTS: All implants were integrated into mature bone. No residual DBBM particles were detected at the test sites after 4 months of healing. Both the test and the control sites showed buccal alveolar bone resorption, 1.8 ± 1.1 and 2.1 ± 1 mm, respectively. The most coronal bone-to-implant contact at the buccal aspect was 2 ± 1.1 an 2.8 ± 1.3 mm, at the test and the control sites, respectively. This difference in the distance was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The application of DBBM concomitant with a collagen membrane to fill the marginal defects around implants placed into the alveolus immediately after tooth extraction contributed to improved bone regeneration in the defects. However, with regard to buccal bony crest preservation, a limited contribution of DBBM particles was achieved.

Influence of various implant platform configurations on peri-implant tissue dimensions: an experimental study in dog.

AIM: To evaluate the influence (i) of various implant platform configurations and (ii) of implant surface characteristics on peri-implant tissue dimensions in a dog model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted bilaterally in six Labrador dogs. After 3 months of healing, two implants, one with a turned and a second with a moderately rough surface, were installed on each side of the mandible in the premolar region. On the right side of the mandible, implants with a tapered and enlarged platform were used, while standard cylindrical implants were installed in the left side of the mandible. Abutments with the diameter of the cylindrical implants were used resulting in a mismatch of 0.25 mm at the tapered implant sites. The flaps were sutured to allow a non-submerged healing. After 4 months, the animals were sacrificed and ground sections were obtained for histometric assessment. RESULTS: All implants were completely osseointegrated. A minimal buccal bone resorption was observed for both implant configurations and surface topographies. Considering the animals as the statistical unit, no significant differences were found at the buccal aspect in relation to bone levels and soft tissue dimensions. The surface topographies did not influence the outcomes either. CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to show differences in peri-implant tissue dimensions when a mismatch of 0.25 mm from a tapered platform to an abutment was applied. The surface topographies influence a neither marginal bone resorption or peri-implant soft tissue dimension.

Influence of implant positioning in extraction sockets on osseointegration: histomorphometric analyses in dogs.

AIM: To evaluate the influence of implant positioning into extraction sockets on osseointegration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Implants were installed immediately into extraction sockets in the mandibles of six Labrador dogs. In the control sites, the implants were positioned in the center of the alveolus, while in the test sites, the implants were positioned 0.8 mm deeper and more lingually. After 4 months of healing, the resorptive patterns of the alveolar crest were evaluated histomorphometrically. RESULTS: All implants were integrated in mineralized bone, mainly composed of mature lamellar bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at the control as well as at the test sites. After 4 months of healing, at the buccal aspects of the control and test sites, the location of the implant rough/smooth limit to the alveolar crest was 2 + or - 0.9 mm and 0.6 + or - 0.9 mm, respectively (P<0.05). At the lingual aspect, the bony crest was located 0.4 mm apically and 0.2 mm coronally to the implant rough/smooth limit at the control and test sites, respectively (NS). CONCLUSIONS: From a clinical point of view, implants installed into extraction sockets should be positioned approximately 1 mm deeper than the level of the buccal alveolar crest and in a lingual position in relation to the center of the alveolus in order to reduce or eliminate the exposure above the alveolar crest of the endosseous (rough) portion of the implant.