Evaluation of a New Dental Implant Cervical Design in Comparison with a Conventional Design in an Experimental American Foxhound Model

Maria Ángeles Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos Pérez-Albacete Martínez, José Eduardo Maté Sánchez De Val, María Luisa Ramos Oltra, Manuel Fernández Domínguez, Jose Luis Calvo Guirado, Maria Ángeles Pérez-Albacete Martínez, Carlos Pérez-Albacete Martínez, José Eduardo Maté Sánchez De Val, María Luisa Ramos Oltra, Manuel Fernández Domínguez, Jose Luis Calvo Guirado

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate osseointegration and crestal bone height in implants with a triangular cervical design in comparison with a standard rounded cervical design. The control group consisted of 24 implants with a standard cervical design, and the test group of 24 implants with a triangular cervical design. The implants were inserted in healed bone in six American Foxhounds. Crestal bone height and tissue thickness in the cervical portion were measured after 12 weeks healing. Data analysis found mean crestal bone loss of: 0.31 ± 0.24 mm on the buccal side, 0.35 ± 0.14 mm on the lingual in the test group, and 0.71 ± 0.28 mm buccal loss, and 0.42 ± 0.30 mm lingual in the control group; with statistically significant differences on the buccal aspect (p = 0.0019). Mean tissue thickness in the test group was 1.98 ± 0.17 mm on the buccal aspect, and 2.43 ± 0.93 mm in the lingual; in the control group it was 2.48 ± 0.61 mm buccal thickness, and 2.88 ± 0.14 mm lingual, with significant differences on both aspects (p = 0.0043; p = 0.0029). The results suggest that greater thickness of peri-implant tissue can be expected when the triangular cervical implant design is used rather than the standard cervical design.

Keywords: bone-to-implant contact; crestal bone loss; new implant design.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Implant designs compared in the study: C1® implant (a) and V3® implant (b).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The implantation protocol was 4 implants per hemi-mandible.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Each hemi-mandible received four tapered implants positioned at crestal bone level.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Linear measurements to assess peri-implant bone remodeling and peri-implant soft tissue remodeling. IS: implant shoulder; C: first bone-to-implant contact; IS´: implant surface; E: the most external portion of the epithelium.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Marginal bone-level changes between baseline and 12-week study times. Marginal bone loss (mean ± SD); * indicates significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Tissue thickness changes between baseline and 12-week study times. Tissue thickness loss (mean ± SD); * indicates significant differences (p < 0.05).

References

    1. Degidi M., Novaes A.B., Jr., Nardi D., Piattelli A. Outcome analysis of immediately placed, immediately restored implants in the esthetic area: The clinical relevance of different interimplant distances. J. Periodontol. 2008;79:1056–1061. doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.070534.
    1. Grunder U., Polizzi G., Goené R., Hatano N., Henry P., Jackson W.J., Kawamura K., Köhler S., Renouard F., Rosenberg R., et al. A 3-year prospective multicenter follow-up report on the immediate and delayed-immediate placement of implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 1999;14:210–216.
    1. Mangano F., Mangano C., Ricci M., Sammons R.L., Shibli J.A., Piattelli A. Single-tooth Morse taper connection implants placed in fresh extraction sockets of the anterior maxilla: An aesthetic evaluation. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:1302–1307. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02307.x.
    1. Chen S.T., Buser D. Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla—A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2014;29(Suppl.):186–215. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.3.
    1. Calvo-Guirado J.L., Gomez-Moreno G., Aguilar-Salvatierra A., Guardia J., Delgado-Ruiz R.A., Romanos G.E. Marginal bone loss evaluation around immediate non-occlusal microthreaded implants placed in fresh extraction sockets in the maxilla: A 3-year study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2014;26:761–767. doi: 10.1111/clr.12336.
    1. Romanos G.E., Javed F. Platform switching minimises crestal bone loss around dental implants: Truth or myth? J. Oral Rehabil. 2014;41:700–708. doi: 10.1111/joor.12189.
    1. Botticelli D., Berglundh T., Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2004;31:820–828. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00565.x.
    1. Araújo M.G., Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2005;32:212–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x.
    1. Negri B., Calvo-Guirado J.L., Pardo Zamora G., Ramírez Fernández M.P., Delgado Ruiz R., Munoz Guzon F. Peri-implant bone reactions to immediate implants placed at different levels in relation to crestal bone. Part I: A pilot study in dogs. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:228–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02158.x.
    1. Palacci P. Aesthetic treatment of the anterior maxilla: Soft and hard tissue considerations. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2004;16:127–137. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2003.10.005.
    1. Calvo-Guirado J.L., López-López P.J., Pérez-Albacete Martínez C., Javed F., Granero-Marín J.M., Maté Sánchez de Val J.E., Ramírez Fernández M.P. Peri-implant bone loss clinical and radiographic evaluation around rough neck and microthread implants: A 5-year study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2016;7 doi: 10.1111/clr.12775.
    1. Hermann J.S., Jones A.A., Bakaeen L.G., Buser D., Schoolfield J.D., Cochran D.L. Influence of a machined collar on crestal bone changes around titanium implants: A histometric study in the canine mandible. J. Periodontol. 2011;82:1329–1338. doi: 10.1902/jop.2011.090728.
    1. Schwarz F., Hegewald A., Becker J. Impact of implant-abutment connection and positioning of the machined collar/microgap on crestal bone level changes: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:417–425. doi: 10.1111/clr.12215.
    1. Oh T.J., Yoon J., Misch C.E., Wang H.L. The causes of early implant bone loss: Myth or science? J. Periodontol. 2002;73:322–333. doi: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.3.322.
    1. Rodríguez-Ciurana X., Vela-Nebot X., Segala-Torres M., Calvo-Guirado J.L., Cambra J., Mendez-Blanco V., Tarnow D.P. The effect of interimplant distance on the height of the interimplant bone crest when using platform-switched implants. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2009;29:141–151.
    1. Calvo-Guirado J.L., Ortiz-Ruiz A.J., Negri B., López-Marí L., Rodríguez-Barba C., Schlottig F. Histological and histomorphometric evaluation of immediate implant placement on a dog model with a new implant surface treatment. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:308–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01841.x.
    1. Shin S.-Y., Han D.-H. Influence of microgrooved collar design on soft and hard tissue healing of immediate implantation in fresh extraction sites in dogs. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009;21:804–814. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01917.x.
    1. Lee D.W., Choi Y.S., Park K.H., Kim C.S., Moon I.S. Effect of microthread on the maintenance of marginal bone level, a 3-year prospective study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2007;18:465–470. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01302.x.
    1. Stanford C.M. Surface modifications of dental implants. Aust. Dent. J. 2008;53(Suppl. 1):26–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00038.x.
    1. Alomrani A.N., Hermann J.S., Jones A.A., Buser D., Schoolfield J., Cochran D.L. The effect of a machined collar on coronal hard tissue around titanium implants: A radiographic study in the canine mandible. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2005;20:677–686.
    1. Calvo-Guirado J.L., Pérez-Albacete C., Aguilar-Salvatierra A., de Val Maté-Sánchez J.E., Delgado-Ruiz R.A., Abboud M., Velasco E., Gómez-Moreno G., Romanos G.E. Narrow-versus mini-implants at crestal and subcrestal bone levels. Experimental study in beagle dogs at three months. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015;19:1363–1369. doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1381-4.
    1. Hermann F., Lerner H., Palti A. Factors influencing the preservation of the periimplant marginal bone. Implant Dent. 2015;16:165–175. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e318065aa81.
    1. Jimbo R., Tovar N., Marin C., Teixeira H.S., Anchieta R.B., Silveira L.M., Janal M.N., Shibli J.A., Coelho P.G. The impact of a modified cutting flute implant design on osseointegration. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014;43:883–888. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.01.016.
    1. Wu S.W., Lee C.C., Fu P.Y., Lin S.C. The effects of flute shape and thread profile on the insertion torque and primary stability of dental implants. Med. Eng. Phys. 2012;34:797–805. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.09.021.
    1. Bratu E.A., Tandlich M., Shapira L. A rough surface implant neck with microthreads reduces the amount of marginal bone loss: A prospective clinical study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:827–832. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01730.x.
    1. Abrahamsson I., Berglundh T. Tissue characteristics at microthreaded implants: An ex- perimental study in dogs. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2006;8:107–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00016.x.
    1. Shin Y.K., Han C.H., Heo S.J., Kim S., Chun H.J. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level around implants with different neck designs after 1 year. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2006;21:789–794.
    1. Nickenig H.-J., Wichmann M., Schlegel K.A., Nkenke E., Eitner S. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone levels adjacent to parallel-screw cylinder machined-neck implants and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants using digitized panoramic radiographs. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:550–554. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01684.x.
    1. Hürzeler M., Fickl S., Zuhr O., Wachtel H.C. Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments: Preliminary data from a prospective study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007;65(Suppl. 1):33–39. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.024.
    1. Cappiello M., Luongo R., Di Iorio D., Bugea C., Cocchetto R., Celletti R. Evaluation of peri-implant bone loss around platform-switched implants. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2008;28:347–355.
    1. Fickl S., Zuhr O., Stein J.M., Hürzeler M.B. Peri-implant bone level around implants with platform-switched abutments. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2010;25:577–581.
    1. Ferrus J., Cecchinato D., Pjetursson E.B., Lang N.P., Sanz M., Lindhe J. Factors influencing ridge alterations following immediate implant placement into extraction sockets. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:22–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01825.x.
    1. Tomasi C., Sanz M., Cecchinato D., Pjetursson B., Ferrus J., Lang N.P., Lindhe J. Bone dimensional variations at implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: A multilevel multivariate analysis. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:30–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01848.x.
    1. Hermann J.S., Buser D., Schenk R.K., Cochran D.L. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non- submerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J. Periodontol. 2000;71:1412–1424. doi: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1412.
    1. Vela-Nebot X., Rodríguez-Ciurana X., Rodado-Alonso C., Segalà-Torres M. Benefits of an implant platform modification technique to reduce crestal bone resorption. Implant Dent. 2006;15:313–320. doi: 10.1097/01.id.0000226788.19742.32.
    1. Hämmerle C.H., Brägger U., Bürgin W., Lang N.P. The effect of subcrestal placement of the polished surface of ITI implants on marginal soft and hard tissues. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 1996;7:111–119. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070204.x.
    1. Weng D., Hitomi-Nagata M.J., Bell M., Nascimento de Melo L.G., Bosco A.F. Influence of microgao location and configuration on peri-implant bone morphology in nonsubmerged implants: An experimental study in dogs. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2010;25:540–547.
    1. Weng D., Hitomi-Nagata M.J., Bosco A.F., Nascimento de Melo L.G. Influence of microgap location and configuration on radiographic bone loss around submerged implants: An experimental study in dogs. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2011;26:941–946.
    1. Pontes A.E.F., Ribeiro F.S., Iezzi G., Piattelli A., Cirelli J.A., Marcantonio E., Jr. Biologic width changes around loaded implants inserted in different levels in relation to crestal bone: Histometric evaluation in canine mandible. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:483–490. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01506.x.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться