A review of histomorphometric analysis techniques for assessing implant-soft tissue interface

Abstract

The success of dental implant treatment depends on the healing of both hard and soft tissues. While osseointegration provides initial success, the biological seal of the peri-implant soft tissue is crucial for maintaining the long term success of implants. Most studies of the biological seal of peri-implant tissues are based on animal or monolayer cell culture models. To understand the mechanisms of soft tissue attachment and the factors affecting the integrity of the soft tissue around the implants, it is essential to obtain good quality histological sections for microscopic examination. The nature of the specimens, however, which consist of both metal implant and soft peri-implant tissues, poses difficulties in preparing the specimens for histomorphometric analysis of the implant-soft tissue interface. We review various methods that have been used for the implant-tissue interface investigation with particular focus on the soft tissue. The different methods are classified and the advantages and limitations of the different techniques are highlighted.

Osteoporotic Rat Models for Evaluation of Osseointegration of Bone Implants

“…The advantage of retaining the implant in the histological sections is that this allows the evaluation of the intimate contact of trabecular bone at the implant surface at higher magnification and on both directions of histological sectioning, that is, transverse and longitudinal. 61,62 However, a disadvantage of histological examination is that it only provides a 2D information of a 3D structure. 63 High-resolution 3D methods via the ex vivo micro-CT can give further insight into the trabecular bone structure around implants.…”

Immunohistochemical Evaluation of Peri-Implant Soft Tissues around Machined and Direct Metal Laser Sintered (DMLS) Healing Abutments in Humans

“…In a few years, the literature has provided a huge number of results on the ability of bone tissue cells to bind titanium with huge variables depending on the implant surface treatment [25,38,39]. On the other hand, a minor interest has been directed to the effects on the transmucosal portion provided by surface treatments and different materials [1,18,20,40]. …”

“…Until now, in implantology, the scientific literature has not clarified whether it is preferable to have a transgingival implant portion with controlled roughness or a smooth (machined) one [40]. …”

Ultrastructural analysis of implant–soft tissue interface on a three dimensional tissue‐engineered oral mucosal model

“…The biggest challenge of this type of study is to preserve the implant–tissue interface of these study models during specimen preparation. Generally, the procedures that have been used to prepare specimens for implant–tissue interface examination could be classified into two categories:17 (i) histological sections with the titanium (Ti) retained, such as in ground sectioning technique4, 8 and (ii) histological sections with the Ti removed, such as in “fracture,”1, 3, 5, 18–21 cryofracture,1 and electropolishing techniques 9, 22. Most researchers agree that it is almost impossible to prepare ultrathin sections for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) examination without removing the implant.…”