Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지

The evaluation of healing patterns in surgically created circumferential gap defects around dental implants according to implant surface, defect width and defect morphology

  • Im, Se-Ung (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Hong, Ji-Youn (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Chae, Gyung-Joon (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Jung, Ui-Won (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Chang-Sung (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Lee, Yong-Keun (Department and Research Institute of Dental Biomaterials and Bioengineering, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Cho, Kyoo-Sung (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Chong-Kwan (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University) ;
  • Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
  • Published : 2008.08.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting healing patterns of surgically created circumferential gap defects around implants in dogs. Materials and Methods: In four mongrel dogs, all mandibular premolars were extracted. After 8 weeks of healing periods, implants were submerged. According to the surface treatment, turned surface was designated as a group A and rough surface as a group B. In each dog, surgical defects on the left side were made with a customized tapered step drill and on the right with a customized paralleled drill. Groups were also divided according to the width of the coronal gaps: 1.0mm, 1.5mm, or 2.0mm. The dogs were sacrificed following 8 weeks and the specimens were analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically. Results: During the postoperative period, healing was uneventful and implants were well-maintained. As the size of the coronal gap was increased, the amount of bone-to-implant contact was decreased. The bone healing was greater in rough surface implants compared to the turned ones. About the defect morphology, tapered shape showed much bone healing and direct bone to implant contact even in the smooth surface implants. Conclusion: Healing of the circumferential defect around dental implant is influenced by the implant surface, defect width and the morphology of the defect. When using rough surface implants, circumferential gap defects within 2 mm do not need any kinds of regenerative procedures and the healing appeared to be faster in the tapered defect morphology than the paralleled one.

Keywords

References

  1. Wilson T, Weber H. Classification of and therapy for areas of deficient bony housing prior to dental implant placement. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1993;13:451-459.
  2. Lazzara RJ. Immediate implant placement into extraction sites: Surgical and restorative advantages. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1989;9:333-343.
  3. Werbitt M, Goldberg P. The immediate implant: Bone preservation and bone regeneration. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1992;12:206-217.
  4. Gelb DA. Immediate implant surgery: Three-year retrospective evaluation of 50 consecutive cases. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants 1993;8:388-399.
  5. Lang N, Bragger U, H?mmerle C, Sutter F. Immediate transmucosal implants using the principle of guided tissue regeneration: Rationale, clinical procedures and 30-month results. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:154-163. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050306.x
  6. Becker W, Dahlin C, Becker BE et al. The use of e-PTFE barrier membranes for bone promotion around titanium implants placed into extraction sockets: A prospective multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:31-40.
  7. Becker BE, Becker W, Ricci A, Geurs N. A prospective clinical trial of endosseous screw-shaped implants placed at the time of tooth extraction without augmentation. J Periodontol 1998;69:920-926. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1998.69.8.920
  8. Watzek G, Haider R, Mensdorff-Pouilly N, Haas R. Immediate implants and delayed implantation for complete restoration of the jaw following extraction of all residual teeth: A retrospective study comparing different types of serial immediate implantation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:561-567.
  9. Denissen HW, Kalk W, Veldhuis HA, van Waas MA. Anatomic consideration for preventive implantation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;82:191-196.
  10. Becker W, Becker BE. Guided tissue regeneration for implants placed into extraction sockets and for implant dehiscences: surgical techniques and case report. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1990;10:376-391.
  11. Gotfredsen K, Nimb L, Buser D, Hjorting-Hansen E. Evaluation of guided bone generation around implants placed into fresh extraction sockets: An experimental study in dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Sur 1993;51:879-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(10)80108-9
  12. Goldstein M, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. The palatal advanced flap: a pedicle flap for primary coverage of immediately placed implants. Clin Oral Imp Res 2002;13:644-650. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130611.x
  13. Rosenquist B, Grenthe B. Immediate placement of implants into extraction sockets: Implant survival. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:205-209.
  14. Schwarz AD, Chaushu G. Placement of implants into fresh extraction sites: 4-7 years retrospective evaluation of 95 immediate implants. J Periodontol 1997;68:1110-1116. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1997.68.11.1110
  15. Schwartz AD, Grossman Y, Chaushu G. The clinical effectiveness of implants placed immediately into fresh extraction sites of molar teeth. J Periodontol 2000;71:839-844. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.5.839
  16. Carlsson L, Rostlund T, Albreksson B et al. Implant fixation improved by close fit: Cylindrical implant-bone interface studied in rabbits. Acta Orthop Scand 1998;59:272.
  17. Knox R, Caudill R, Meffert R. Histologic evaluation of dental endosseous implants placed in surgically created extraction defects. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1991;11:364-375.
  18. Thomas G, Wilson Jr., Schenk R, Buser D. Implants placed in immediate extraction sites: A report of histologic and histomorphometric analyses of human biopsies. Int J Oral Maxillofacial implants 1998;13:333-341.
  19. Akimoto K, Becker W, Persson R et al. Evaluation of titanium implants placed into simulated extraction sockets: A study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:351-360.
  20. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Buser D, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:820-828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00565.x
  21. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Buser D, Lindhe J. Appositional bone formation in marginal defects at implants. Clin Oral Imp Res 2003;14:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140101.x
  22. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Persson LG, Lindhe J. Bone regeneration at implants with turned or rough surfaces in self-contained defects: An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:448-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00693.x
  23. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Buser D, Lindhe J. Resolution of bone defects of varying dimension and configuration in the marginal portion of the peri-implant bone: An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31: 309-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00502.x
  24. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Buser D, Lindhe J. The influence of a biomaterial on the closure of marginal hard tissue defect adjacent to implants: An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:285-292. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1600-0501.2003.01008.x
  25. Caudill RF, Meffert RM. Histologic analysis of the osseointegration of endosseous implants in simulated extraction sockets with and without e-PTFE barriers. Part I. Preliminary findings. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1991;11: 207-215.
  26. Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:391-401.
  27. Davies JE. Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Edu 2003;8:932-949.