Clinical oral implants research · 2007
Bone healing dynamics at buccal peri-implant sites.
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.
Qahash Mohammed, Susin Cristiano, Polimeni Giuseppe, Hall Jan, Wikesjö Ulf M E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It is common belief that immediate implant placement into extraction sites may act to preserve the alveolar process. The objective of this study was to evaluate healing dynamics at buccal peri-implant sites in relation to the dimensions of the alveolar ridge.
METHODS: Bilateral, critical-size, supraalveolar, peri-implant defects were created in 12 male Hound Labrador mongrel dogs following surgical horizontal cut-down of the alveolar ridge. Each jaw quadrant received three 10-mm titanium implants placed 5 mm into extraction sites of the third and fourth premolar teeth leaving 5 mm in a supraalveolar position. The mucoperiosteal flaps were advanced, adapted, and sutured for primary intention healing. Bone fluorescent markers were administered at weeks 3 and 4 postsurgery, and pre-euthanasia. Incandescent, polarized, and fluorescent light microscopies were used to assess the width of the buccal wall of the alveolar ridge and local bone remodeling over the 8-week healing interval.
RESULTS: There was a significant association between the width of the buccal alveolar ridge and extent of bone resorption evaluated by incandescent and fluorescent light microscopy. A non-linear association was observed between the buccal ridge width and resorption of the alveolar ridge. A 2-mm threshold was established to account for this non-linearity. The strength of this association was two times greater in specimens with a buccal ridge width <2 mm compared with a wider ridge (beta=1.62 vs. 0.80) observed by fluorescent light microscopy. Accordingly, mean buccal resorption was significantly greater when the ridge width was <2 mm. Fluorescent light microscopy consistently showed greater buccal resorption compared with incandescent light microscopy (P<0.05). Agreement between the examination techniques was low (concordance correlation coefficient=0.49), especially for higher values of buccal resorption.
CONCLUSION: When implants are placed into extraction sites, proximity to the buccal alveolar crest appears a major consideration. The observations herein suggest that the width of the buccal alveolar ridge should be at least 2 mm to maintain the alveolar bone level. These observations likely have general implications for implant placement using most surgical protocols.
METHODS: Bilateral, critical-size, supraalveolar, peri-implant defects were created in 12 male Hound Labrador mongrel dogs following surgical horizontal cut-down of the alveolar ridge. Each jaw quadrant received three 10-mm titanium implants placed 5 mm into extraction sites of the third and fourth premolar teeth leaving 5 mm in a supraalveolar position. The mucoperiosteal flaps were advanced, adapted, and sutured for primary intention healing. Bone fluorescent markers were administered at weeks 3 and 4 postsurgery, and pre-euthanasia. Incandescent, polarized, and fluorescent light microscopies were used to assess the width of the buccal wall of the alveolar ridge and local bone remodeling over the 8-week healing interval.
RESULTS: There was a significant association between the width of the buccal alveolar ridge and extent of bone resorption evaluated by incandescent and fluorescent light microscopy. A non-linear association was observed between the buccal ridge width and resorption of the alveolar ridge. A 2-mm threshold was established to account for this non-linearity. The strength of this association was two times greater in specimens with a buccal ridge width <2 mm compared with a wider ridge (beta=1.62 vs. 0.80) observed by fluorescent light microscopy. Accordingly, mean buccal resorption was significantly greater when the ridge width was <2 mm. Fluorescent light microscopy consistently showed greater buccal resorption compared with incandescent light microscopy (P<0.05). Agreement between the examination techniques was low (concordance correlation coefficient=0.49), especially for higher values of buccal resorption.
CONCLUSION: When implants are placed into extraction sites, proximity to the buccal alveolar crest appears a major consideration. The observations herein suggest that the width of the buccal alveolar ridge should be at least 2 mm to maintain the alveolar bone level. These observations likely have general implications for implant placement using most surgical protocols.