The evaluation of healing patterns in surgically created circumferential gap defects around dental implants according to implant surface, defect width and defect morphology

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting healing patterns of surgically created circumferential gap defects around implants in dogs. Materials and Methods:In four mongrel dogs, all mandibular premolars were extracted. After 8 weeks of healing periods, implants were submerged. According to the surface treatment, turned surface was designated as a group A and rough surface as a group B. In each dog, surgical defects on the left side were made with a customized tapered step drill and on the right with a customized paralleled drill. Groups were also divided according to the width of the coronal gaps: 1.0mm, 1.5mm, or 2.0mm. The dogs were sacrificed following 8 weeks and the specimens were analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically. Results: During the postoperative period, healing was uneventful and implants were well-maintained. As the size of the coronal gap was increased, the amount of bone-to-implant contact was decreased. The bone healing was greater in rough surface implants compared to the turned ones. About the defect morphology, tapered shape showed much bone healing and direct bone to implant contact even in the smooth surface implants. Conclusion: Healing of the circumferential defect around dental implant is influenced by the implant surface, defect width and the morphology of the defect. When using rough surface implants, circumferential gap defects within 2 mm do not need any kinds of regenerative procedures and the healing appeared to be faster in the tapered defect morphology than the paralleled one. (J Korean Acad Periodontol 2008;38:385-394)

Extraction socket preservation

“…Although ESP contributed to prevention of bone resorption, some cases exhibited insufficient bone healing quantity and quality. Larger defects required longer healing time 53 . New bone grew at the contact with recipient bone up to the lower 1/3 of the defect.…”