Comparison of healed tissues adjacent to submerged and non‐submerged unloaded titanium dental implants. A histometric study in beagle dogs.

Abstract

This study involved histometry of the healed tissues around submerged and nonsubmerged dental implants in beagle dogs. In a split-mouth design, 19 submerged and 19 nonsubmerged commercially pure titanium implants, titanium plasma-sprayed in the bone anchoring part and smooth in the transmucosal portion, were placed in the mandibles of 6 dogs. Oral hygiene was performed 3 times weekly. After 3 months of healing, transmucosal abutments were inserted in the submerged implants. Six weeks after second stage surgery, the dogs were sacrificed and specimens obtained and processed for histology and histometry. Using a light microscope and a digitizing pad, the distance from implant top to mucosa border (DIM), the extent of epithelial downgrowth (ED), the attachment level, (AL), the length of connective tissue contact (CTC) and the distance of the first coronal alveolar bone contact from the implant top (DIB) were measured at the mesial and distal aspects. Means +/- standard deviations for submerged and nonsubmerged implants were calculated, with the dog being the unit of measure. No statistically significant differences between submerged and nonsubmerged implants were found for DIM, CTC and DIB. However, significant differences were observed for ED and AL. This study in beagle dogs indicates that the apical extension of the peri-implant epithelium is significantly greater and the attachment level significantly lower adjacent to submerged implants with second-stage transmucosal abutments than in nonsubmerged, one-stage implants.

Interproximal Papillae Reconstruction around Implant Using Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in Maxillary Anterior Region: A Case Series

“…Bone loss occurs mostly in first year after surgery, as reported by Weber et al [19]. Authors showed that a large percentage of initial bone loss occurred during the first month in one stage implant [19]. After the first year of function, an immediate restoration did not seem to cause a greater average amount of bone loss.…”

“…Higher mean marginal bone loss on mesial and distal surfaces in the present study could be due to the fact that all the implants were placed in maxillary anterior region. Bone loss occurs mostly in first year after surgery, as reported by Weber et al [19]. Authors showed that a large percentage of initial bone loss occurred during the first month in one stage implant [19].…”

“…The care was taken not to perforate the buccal gingiva. One piece of SCTG was inserted in the pouch created on mesial site of implant, while other on distal site of implant to protrude both the papillae 2 - 3 mm coronally [7,19]. A suture was placed at one end of the graft in guiding the graft while pushing through the sulcus and beneath each interdental papilla (Figure 9).…”

Prospective study of treatment outcome of implant retained mandibular overdenture: Two years follow-up

“…The results of this study are similar to the study conducted by us. Weber HP, Buser D, Donath K, Fiorellini[13] demonstrated that in one stage implants, a large percentage of initial bone loss occurred during the 1 st months, whereas in two-stage implants 40% of initial bone resorption was found after re-entry. This study compares and evaluates the mean marginal bone level on the mesial and distal surface of immediately loaded implants over a period of 2 years.…”

Marginal bony changes in relation to different vertical positions of dental implants

“…Bone loss and bone change were measured by analyzing the height of the alveolar crest line from the distal and the mesial part of the implant at each stage [11]. Only vertical bone loss was measured, and bone gain was considered a bone loss of zero [12].…”