Clinical oral implants research · 2014
Sub-crestal positioning of implants results in higher bony crest resorption: an experimental study in dogs.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cesaretti Gianfranco, Lang Niklaus P, Salata Luiz A, Schweikert Michael T, Gutierrez Hernandez Maria Elena, Botticelli Daniele
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare peri-implant soft- and hard-tissue integration at implants installed juxta- or sub-crestally. Furthermore, differences in the hard and soft peri-implant tissue dimensions at sites prepared with drills or sonic instruments were to be evaluated.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three months after tooth extraction in six dogs, recipient sites were prepared in both sides of the mandible using conventional drills or a sonic device (Sonosurgery(®)). Two implants with a 1.7-mm high-polished neck were installed, one with the rough/smooth surface interface placed at the level of the buccal bony crest (control) and the second placed 1.3 mm deeper (test). After 8 weeks of non-submerged healing, biopsies were harvested and ground sections prepared for histological evaluation.
RESULTS: The buccal distances between the abutment/fixture junction (AF) and the most coronal level of osseointegration (B) were 1.6 ± 0.6 and 2.4 ± 0.4 mm; between AF and the top of the bony crest (C), they were 1.4 ± 0.4 and 2.2 ± 0.2 mm at the test and control sites, respectively. The top of the peri-implant mucosa (PM) was located more coronally at the test (1.2 ± 0.6 mm) compared to the control sites (0.6 ± 0.5 mm). However, when the original position of the bony crest was taken into account, a higher bone loss and a more apical position of the peri-implant mucosa resulted at the test sites.
CONCLUSIONS: The placement of implants into a sub-crestal location resulted in a higher vertical buccal bone resorption and a more apical position of the peri-implant mucosa in relation to the level of the bony crest at implant installation. Moreover, peri-implant hard-tissue dimensions were similar at sites prepared with either drills or Sonosurgery(®).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three months after tooth extraction in six dogs, recipient sites were prepared in both sides of the mandible using conventional drills or a sonic device (Sonosurgery(®)). Two implants with a 1.7-mm high-polished neck were installed, one with the rough/smooth surface interface placed at the level of the buccal bony crest (control) and the second placed 1.3 mm deeper (test). After 8 weeks of non-submerged healing, biopsies were harvested and ground sections prepared for histological evaluation.
RESULTS: The buccal distances between the abutment/fixture junction (AF) and the most coronal level of osseointegration (B) were 1.6 ± 0.6 and 2.4 ± 0.4 mm; between AF and the top of the bony crest (C), they were 1.4 ± 0.4 and 2.2 ± 0.2 mm at the test and control sites, respectively. The top of the peri-implant mucosa (PM) was located more coronally at the test (1.2 ± 0.6 mm) compared to the control sites (0.6 ± 0.5 mm). However, when the original position of the bony crest was taken into account, a higher bone loss and a more apical position of the peri-implant mucosa resulted at the test sites.
CONCLUSIONS: The placement of implants into a sub-crestal location resulted in a higher vertical buccal bone resorption and a more apical position of the peri-implant mucosa in relation to the level of the bony crest at implant installation. Moreover, peri-implant hard-tissue dimensions were similar at sites prepared with either drills or Sonosurgery(®).