Crestal Bone Remodeling in Loaded and Unloaded Implants and the Microgap: A Histologic Study

Crestal Bone Remodeling in Loaded and Unloaded Implants and the Microgap: A Histologic Study
September 2003
Assenza, Bartolomeo MD, DDS*; Scarano, Antonio DDS**; Petrone, Giovanna DDS, PhD***; Iezzi, Giovanna DDS**; Thams, Ulf MD, DDSÇƒÜ; San Roman, Fidel MDÇƒ?; Piattelli, Adriano MD, DDS¨?
*Visiting Professor, Dental School, University of Chieti, Italy; Private Practice, Cologno Monzese (MI), Italy.
**Research Fellow, Dental School, University of Chieti, Italy.
***Postdoctoral Fellow, Dental School, University of Chieti, Italy.
ÇƒÜPrivate Practice, Madrid, Spain.
Çƒ?Professor of Surgery, Director of Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
¨?Professor of Oral Medicine and Pathology, Dental School, University of Chieti, Italy.
Reprint requests and correspondence to: Adriano Piattelli, MD, DDS, Via F. Sciucchi 63, 66100 Chieti, Italy
Implant Dentistry: Volume 12(3) September 2003 pp 235-241
Please visit the web site to view the article in its entirety.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to histologically evaluate the crestal bone response to loaded and unloaded implants in beagle dogs.
Materials and Methods: Sandblasted and acid-etched implants (Bone System, Milano, Italy) were placed in the mandible of six beagle dogs. The two premolars and the first molars had been extracted 3 months previously. Each dog received 12 implants in the mandible, and a total of 72 implants were used in this study. Three months after implantation, second-stage surgeries were performed for placement of abutments or healing screws. Three dogs were killed after 6 months, and three dogs were killed after 12 months. All 72 implants were re- trieved.
Results: No statistically significant differences were found in the amount of bone loss between test and control implants, both at 6 and 12 months. Statistically significant differences were found, in both groups, between the bone loss observed at 6 months and that found at 12 months.
Conclusion: Loading does not seem to be a relevant factor in the peri-implant bone resorption observed during the first year of function. Our results support previous findings that bone crest level changes could depend on the location of the microgap.
References TOP
1. Hoshaw SJ, Brunski JB, Cochran GVB. Mechanical loading of Branemark implants affects interfacial modeling and remodeling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994; 9: 345-360.
2. Vaillaincourt H, Pilliar RM, McCammond D. Factors affecting crestal bone loss with dental implants partially covered with a porous coating: A finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11: 351-359.
3. Vaillancourt H, Pilliar RM, McCammond D. Finite element analysis of crestal bone loss around porous-coated dental implants. J Appl Biomater. 1995; 6: 267-282.
4. Hermann JS, Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, et al. Crestal bone changes around titanium implants: a radiographic evaluation of unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 1997; 68: 1117-1130.
5. Ericsson I, Nilner K, Klinge B, et al. Radiographical and histological characteristics of submerged and non-submerged titanium implants. An experimental study in the Labrador dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7: 20-26.
6. Misch CE, Bidez MW, Sharawy M. A bioengineered implant for a predetermined bone cellular response to loading forces. A literature review. J Periodontol. 2001; 72: 1276-1286.
7. Callan D, O'Mahony A, Cobb CM. Loss of crestal bone around dental implants: a retrospective study. Implant Dent. 1998; 7: 258-266.
8. O'Mahony A, Bowles Q, Woolsey G, et al. Stress distribution in the single unit osseointegrated dental implant: finite element analyses of axial and non-axial loading. Implant Dent. 2000; 9: 207-218.
9. Wiskott HWA, Belser UC. Lack of integration of smooth titanium surfaces: A working hypothesis based on strains generated in the surrounding bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1999; 10: 429-444.
10. Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions to titanium implants with different surface characteristics subjected to static load. A study in the dog (II). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12: 196-201.
11. Barbier L, Schepers E. Adaptive bone remodeling around oral implants under axial and non-axial loading conditions in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 215-223.
12. Duyck J, Ronold HJ, van Oosterwyck H, et al. The influence of static and dynamic loading on marginal bone reactions around osseointegrated implants: an animal experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12: 207-218.
13. Tarnow DP, Cho SC, Wallace SS. The effect of inter-implant distance on the height of inter-implant bone crest. J Periodontol. 2000; 71: 546-549.
14. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Wennstrom J, et al. The peri-implant hard and soft tissues at different implant systems. A comparative study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7: 212-219.
15. Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the peri-implant mucosa: biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol. 1996: 23; 971-973.
16. Cochran DL, Hermann JS, Schenk RK, et al. Biologic width around titanium implants. A histometric analysis of the implanto-gingival junction around unloaded and loaded nonsubmerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 1997; 68: 186-198.
17. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, et al. Biological width around titanium implants. A physiologically formed and stable dimension over time. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11: 1-11.
18. Gargiulo AW, Wentz FM, Orban B. Dimensions and relations of the dentogingival junction in humans. J Periodontol. 1961; 32: 261-267.
19. Stern IB. Current concepts of the dentogingival junction: The epithelial and connective tissue attachments to the tooth. J Periodontol. 1981; 52: 465-476.
20. Piattelli A, Scarano A, Quaranta M. High-precision, cost-effective system for producing thin sections of oral tissues containing dental implants. Biomaterials. 1997; 18: 577-579.
21. Persson LG, Lekholm U, Leonhardt A, et al. Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Branemark system implant components. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7: 90-95.
22. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Eyssen H, et al. Microbial penetration along the implant components of the Branemark system. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994; 5: 239-244.
23. Jansen VK, Conrads G, Richter EJ. Microbial leakage and marginal fit of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 527-540.
24. Piattelli A, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, et al. Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections. J Periodontol. 2001; 72: 1146-1150.
25. Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. Bacterial colonization of the internal part of two-stage implants. An in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993; 4: 158-161.
26. Hermann JS, Schofield JD, Schenk RK, et al. Influence of the size of the microgap on crestal bone changes around titanium implants. A histometric evaluation of unloaded non-submerged implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol. 2001; 72: 1372-1383.
27. Weber HP, Buser D, Donath K, et al. Comparison of healed tissues adjacent to submerged and non-submerged unloaded dental implants. A histometric study in Beagle dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7: 11-19.
28. Hermann JS, Buser D, Schenk RK, et al. 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.