Variables Influencing Bone Formation After Transcrestal Sinus Floor Elevation: Radiographic and Tomographic Evaluations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of initial implant protrusion within the subantral space on hard tissue gain for implants placed simultaneously with transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) with a biomaterial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 implants were placed after TSFE in 44 patients using either a human demineralized bone matrix or a deproteinized bone mineral matrix. Intraoral radiographs were obtained before and immediately after surgery. CBCT scans were obtained at the last follow-up (mean: 6.6 years). RESULTS: The initial bone crest height was 4.6 ± 1.4 mm, and the initial protrusion of the implants above the sinus floor was 3.5 ± 1.4 mm. At the follow-up assessments, the hard tissue mean gain was 2.5 ± 1.5 mm, resulting in a mean residual protrusion of 1.1 ± 1.3 mm. Only 10 implants did not protrude above the apical level of hard tissue. Positive correlations were found between hard tissue gain and initial protrusion (r = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.72; P = .0001), between the initial and final protrusions (r = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.60; P = .007), and between the follow-up period and final protrusion (r = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.58; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: The higher the initial protrusion was, the higher were the hard tissue gain and the final protrusion of the implant above the apical level of the hard tissue.

Subcrestal Positioning of Implants with a Convergent Hyperbolic Collar Profile: An Experimental Study in Dogs.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence on peri-implant soft and hard tissues of one-piece implants with a convergent hyperbolic profile collar placed at different depths with respect to the bone crest. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six dogs were included in the experiment. Three months after mandibular tooth extractions, two one-piece implants carrying a 2.8-mm-high convergent hyperbolic profile collar were placed in the alveolar crest with the coronal margin of the rough surface either 0.8 mm (test-1) or 1.8 mm (test-2) deeper with respect to the bone crest (Ct0). Two similar implants were instead placed flush to Ct0 as controls (control-1 and control-2, respectively). Healing screws were connected, and nonsubmerged healing was allowed. After 4 months, block sections were harvested, and histologic slides were prepared in a buccolingual plane. RESULTS: In the histologic analyses, both the buccal crest and coronal level of osseointegration were located more coronally at the test compared to the control implants concerning the implant. However, the buccal bone crest with respect to Ct0 presented a loss of 0.8 ± 0.4 mm at the test-1 and 0.5 ± 0.4 mm at the control-1 implants (P = .028), and a loss of 2.0 ± 1.0 mm and 0.7 ± 0.4 mm at the test-2 and control-2 implants (P = .028), respectively. At the control implants, the collars were exposed above the peri-implant mucosa, while those of the test implants were not. However, the coronal level of the peri-implant mucosa with respect to Ct0 was located more apically at the test compared to the control implants. CONCLUSION: The placement of implants with a hyperbolic convergent profile collar in the subcrestal position resulted in higher buccal bone resorption and more soft tissue recession compared to the crestal implants with respect to the level of the bone crest at placement.

Implants placed into alveoli with periapical lesions: an experimental study in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To histologically analyze the effect of a curettage of the granulation tissue on healing at implants installed immediately after the extraction of teeth presenting periapical lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In seven dogs, the dental pulp was removed from the pulp chamber and from the root canals of the right and left third and the fourth mandibular premolars and of the left second premolar. The chambers were left opened and, after 3 months, apical lesions were present, and the premolars were extracted. One alveolus each premolar was selected and, before implant installation, the apical lesions of two alveoli were curetted (curettage group) while the other three were not treated (no-treatment group). The second right premolar was also extracted (Negative control group). Six implants each dog were installed, and a fully submerged healing was allowed. Four months after, biopsies were collected, and histological analyses were performed. RESULTS: The proportions of new bone at the entire body of the implant was 70.2 ± 10.7% at the no-treatment group, 72.1 ± 14.8% at the curettage group, and 69.6 ± 3.7% at the negative control group. The respective new bone proportion at the apical aspect of the implants was 68.4 ± 17.5%, 61.5 ± 27.3%, and 78.1 ± 5.7%. None of the differences among the various groups were statistically significant. No inflammatory infiltrates were seen in the apical region. CONCLUSIONS: In this experimental study, it is concluded that the removal of the granulation tissue seems not to be necessary to obtain a proper osseointegration of implants installed immediately after the extraction of teeth presenting a periapical lesion.

Sequential healing at implants installed immediately into extraction sockets. An experimental study in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sequential healing at implants installed in a healed alveolar bony ridge or immediately after tooth extraction without functional load. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the mandible of 12 dogs, the mesial roots of the first molars were endodontically treated, the tooth hemisected, and the distal roots extracted. After 3 months, the mesial roots of the fourth premolars were endodontically treated, the tooth hemisected, and the distal roots extracted in one side of the mandible. Implants were placed immediately into extraction sockets (IPIES) of the fourth premolar and in the healed sites in the molar regions. Healing abutments were placed, and the flaps were sutured to allow a non-submerged healing. The time of surgery and of sacrifices were planned in such a way to obtain biopsies representing the healing after 1 and 2 weeks and 1 and 3 months, respectively. Ground sections were prepared for histological evaluation of tissues components on the implant surface and the coronal termination level of osseointegration (M-B). RESULTS: New bone apposition on the implant surface was slightly higher at the healed compared to the IPIES sites, being 7.4% and 4.1% after 1 week, and 67.3% and 65.3% after 3 months, respectively. Old bone was progressively resorbed, from 27.0% and 21.9% after 1 week, to 2.5% and 2.0% after 3 months, at healed and IPIES sites, respectively. M-B was 1.4 mm and 2.6 mm after 1 week, 1.2 mm and 1.2 mm after 3 months, at healed and IPIES sites, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar patterns of sequential osseointegration were found at implants installed in healed alveolar bone or in alveolar sockets immediately after tooth extraction. The coronal termination level of osseointegration, that was different after 1 week, was found similar at the 3-month observation.

Immediate loading of implants installed in a healed alveolar bony ridge or immediately after tooth extraction: an experimental study in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sequential healing at immediately loaded implants installed in a healed alveolar bony ridge or immediately after tooth extraction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the mandible of 12 dogs, the second premolars were extracted. After 3 months, the mesial roots of the third premolars were endodontically treated and the distal roots extracted. Implants were placed immediately into the extraction sockets (test) and in the second premolar region (control). Crowns were applied at the second and third maxillary premolars, and healing abutments of appropriate length were applied at both implants placed in the mandible and adapted to allow occlusal contacts with the crowns in the maxilla. The time of surgery and time of sacrifices were planned in such a way to obtain biopsies representing the healing after 1 and 2 weeks and 1 and 3 months. Ground sections were prepared for histological analyses. RESULTS: At the control sites, a resorption of the buccal bone of 1 mm was found after 1 week and remained stable thereafter. At the test sites, the resorption was 0.4 mm at 1-week period and further loss was observed after 1 month. The height of the peri-implant soft tissue was 3.8 mm both at test and control sites. Higher values of mineralized bone-to-implant contact and bone density were seen at the controls compared with the test sites. The differences, however, were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Different patterns of sequential early healing were found at implants installed in healed alveolar bone or in alveolar sockets immediately after tooth extractions. However, three months after implant installation, no statistically significant differences were found for the hard- and soft-tissue dimensions.

Healing outcomes at implants installed in sites augmented with particulate autologous bone and xenografts. An experimental study in dogs.

AIM: To evaluate the integration of implants installed at the interface of pristine and grafted tissue augmented with particulate autologous bone or deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), concomitantly with a collagen membrane. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 6 Labrador dogs, the distal root of (3)P(3) and (4)P(4) was endodontically treated and hemi-sected, and the mesial roots extracted concomitantly with the extraction of (2)P(2). The buccal bony walls were removed, and two box-shaped defects, one larger and one smaller, were created. After 3 months, flaps were elevated, and the defects were filled with particulate autologous bone or DBBM in the right and left side of the mandible, respectively. Collagen membranes were used to cover the grafted areas. Three months later, flaps were elevated, and a customized device was used as surgical guide to prepare the recipient sites at the interface between grafts and pristine bone. One implant was installed in each of the four defects. After 3 months, biopsies were harvested and ground sections prepared for histological evaluation. RESULTS: The augmentation technique was effective at all sites and all the foreseen implants were installed. In the histological analysis, all implants were integrated in mature bone, at both the buccal and lingual aspects. The most coronal bone-to-implant contact and the top of the buccal bony crest were located at a similar distance between test and control implants. However, these distances were higher at the larger compared with the smaller defects. Especially in the large defect, residual particles of DBBM were found embedded into connective tissue and located outside the bony crest. CONCLUSIONS: Particulate autologous bone as well as DBBM particles used to augment horizontally the alveolar bony process allowed for the osseointegration of implants installed after 3 months of healing.

Alveolar bony crest preservation at implants installed immediately after tooth extraction: an experimental study in the dog.

AIM: To evaluate the influence of deproteinized bovine bone mineral in conjunction with a collagen membrane, at implants installed into sockets in a lingual position immediately after tooth extraction, and presenting initial horizontal residual buccal defects <2 mm. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The pulp tissue of the mesial roots of (4)P(4) was removed in six Labrador dogs, and the root canals were filled with gutta-percha and cement. Flaps were elevated, and the buccal and lingual alveolar bony plates were exposed. The premolars were hemi-sectioned, and the distal roots were removed. Implants were installed in a lingual position and with the margin flush with the buccal bony crest. After installation, defects resulted at about 1.7 mm in width at the buccal aspects, both at the test and control sites. Only in the left site (test), deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) particles were placed into the defect concomitantly with the placement of a collagen membrane. A non-submerged healing was allowed. RESULTS: After 3 months of healing, one implant was found not integrated and was excluded from the analysis together with the contralateral control implant. All remaining implants were integrated into mature bone. The bony crest was located at the same level of the implant shoulder, both at the test and control sites. At the buccal aspect, the most coronal bone-to-implant contact was located at a similar distance from the implant margin at the test (1.7 ± 1.0 mm) and control (1.6 ± 0.8 mm) sites, respectively. Only small residual DBBM particles were found at the test sites. CONCLUSION: The placement of an implant in a lingual position into a socket immediately after tooth extraction may favor a low exposure of the buccal implant surface. The use of DBBM particles, concomitantly with a collagen membrane, did not additionally improve the outcome obtained at the control sites.