Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Clin Med. 2019 May 7;8(5). pii: E618. doi: 10.3390/jcm8050618.

Can the Macrogeometry of Dental Implants Influence Guided Bone Regeneration in Buccal Bone Defects? Histomorphometric and Biomechanical Analysis in Beagle Dogs.

Author information

1
Maxillofacial Department HM Hospitals, Doctoral Program of Translational Medicine, CEU San Pablo University, 28223 Madrid, Spain. clinferfun@yahoo.es.
2
Department of Implant Dentistry, CEU San Pablo University, 28223 Madrid, Spain. v.ortegasensio@gmail.com.
3
Department of Implant Dentistry, CEU San Pablo University, 28223 Madrid, Spain. efuentesnumancia@gmail.com.
4
Department of Dental Research, Universidad Federico Henriquez y Carvajal (UFHEC), Santo Domingo 10107, Dominican Republic. jaragoneses@ufhec.edu.do.
5
Faculty of Dental Medicine, University Tito Maiorescu, 004051 Bucarest, Romania. horia.barbu@prof.utm.ro.
6
Department of Oral and Implant Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), 30107 Murcia, Spain. mpramirez@ucam.edu.
7
Department of Prosthodontics and Digital Technology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, NY 11794-8712, USA. Rafael.Delgado-Ruiz@stonybrookmedicine.edu.
8
Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), 30107 Murcia, Spain. jlcalvo@ucam.edu.
9
Private practice. Tel Aviv 3100000, Israel. samet@drsamet.com.
10
Department of Research, Biotecnos, Cuareim 1483, Montevideo CP 11100, Uruguay. sergio.gehrke@hotmail.com.

Abstract

The aim of this experimental animal study was to assess guided bone regeneration (GBR) and implant stability (ISQ) around two dental implants with different macrogeometries. Forty eight dental implants were placed within six Beagle dogs. The implants were divided into two groups (n = 24 per group): G1 group implants presented semi-conical macrogeometry, a low apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (whereby the cervical portion was bigger than the implant body). G2 group implants presented parallel walls macrogeometry, a strong apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (with the cervical portion parallel to the implant body). Buccal (mouth-related) defects of 2 mm (c2 condition) and 5 mm (c3 condition) were created. For the control condition with no defect (c1), implants were installed at crestal bone level. Eight implants in each group were installed under each condition. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured immediately after implant placement, and on the day of sacrifice (3 months after the implant placement). Histological and histomorphometric procedures and analysis were performed to assess all samples, measuring crestal bone loss (CBL) and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). The data obtained were compared with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. The ISQ results showed a similar evolution between the groups at the two evaluation times, although higher values were found in the G1 group under all conditions. Within the limitations of this animal study, it may be concluded that implant macrogeometry is an important factor influencing guided bone regeneration in buccal defects. Group G1 showed better buccal bone regeneration (CBL) and BIC % at 3 months follow up, also parallel collar design can stimulate bone regeneration more than divergent collar design implants. The apical portion of the implant, with a stronger self-tapping feature, may provide better initial stability, even in the presence of a bone defect in the buccal area.

KEYWORDS:

buccal defects; dental implants; guided bone regeneration; implant macrogeometry; implant stability quotient.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center