Immediate one‐piece zirconia implants with/without xenograft in the buccal gap: A 6‐month pre‐clinical study

Abstract

Objective To histologically evaluate healing following grafting a xenogenous bone substitute in the buccal gap around the immediately placed one‐piece zirconia implant. Materials and methods The third and fourth premolars (PM3 and PM4) in both quadrants of the mandible of nine Mongrel Hound dogs were used for this experiment. They have been removed, and the recipient sites were prepared. The implants were placed in a lingual position in the socket. In one side of the jaw, the gap between the implant and the socket walls was grafted (test) while no grafting was performed in the contralateral side (control), randomly selected. After 6 months of healing, biopsies were obtained and prepared for histological analysis. Vertical and horizontal measures were recorded in buccal and lingual surface. Results The hard tissue was in a coronal position on the test side compared with the control side. The bone thickness around ZLA (zirconia large‐grit sandblasted and acid‐etched surface) level was larger on the test side. On the test side, the first bone–implant contact and bone crest, at the buccal aspect, were more coronal to ZLA in PM4 while in PM3 the same happened with the bone crest. The width of the buccal bone wall was larger in PM4 than in PM3 at the ZLA level and 1 mm apical to ZLA. Conclusion The placement of a xenograft in the gap between 1‐piece zirconia implant and the buccal wall in dogs modified the process of hard tissue healing, providing additional amount of hard tissue.

Immediate placement of one‐piece zirconia implants with or without xenograft into the buccal gap. Soft tissues as secondary outcomes of an experimental in vivo study

“…This author had results contrary to those found by Araújo et al (2011) in dogs and Sanz et al (2017) in humans, that found that placing a demineralized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) in the gap significantly reduced the horizontal bone resorptive changes occurring in the buccal bone after the immediate implantation in fresh extraction sockets. Regarding zirconia implants, it is known that the placement of DBBM-C in the gap between a 1-piece zirconia implant and the buccal wall in dogs modified the process of hard tissue healing providing an additional amount of hard tissue (Alves et al, 2021), that is, similar results to those found by Araújo et al (2011) and Sanz et al (2017) with titanium implants. Benic et al (2017) have concluded that zirconia and titanium implants grafted with DBBM granules and covered with a collagen membrane did not perform differently regarding the augmented ridge contour, the new bone formation and the implant osseointegration.…”

“…The present experiment demonstrated that the placement of xenograft with 10% collagen into the buccal gap between a one-piece zirconia implant and bone walls of a fresh socket of dogs modified the process of soft tissue healing, providing a more coronal position of the peri-implant mucosal margin. This publication is the continuation of the study of Alves et al (2021), and, therefore, the results are correlated.…”

“…The statistical analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (V.25.0). The primary outcome was the bone loss (ZLA--B/I), that is, the amount of bone lost during the healing period, presented in the first publication (Alves et al, 2021). The soft tissue outcomes were the variables PM-S, S-B/I, PM-aBE, aBE-B/I, and PM--B/I.…”

“…This publication reports the soft tissue outcomes derived from the publication: Immediate one-piece zirconia implants with/without xenograft in the buccal gap: a 6-month pre-clinical study (Alves et al, 2021). Since it is the same study, the Materials and Methods are the same except for the points observed in the histological examination.…”

Critical review on bone grafting during immediate implant placement

“…dimensionA mongrel dog study analyzed the effect of placing DBBM-C into the buccal gap in one piece zirconia implants 76. A total of 36 implants were immediately placed with flapless approach at a lingual position of mandibular premolars.…”