Cargando…

Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading

The present study aims to evaluate the influence of apicocoronal position and immediate and conventional loading in the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC). Thus, 36 implants were inserted in the edentulous mandible from six dogs. Three implants were installed in each hemimandible, in different...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pontes, Ana Emília Farias, Ribeiro, Fernando Salimon, Iezzi, Giovanna, Pires, Juliana Rico, Zuza, Elizangela Partata, Piattelli, Adriano, Marcantonio Junior, Elcio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211156/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25371911
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/606947
_version_ 1782341521520984064
author Pontes, Ana Emília Farias
Ribeiro, Fernando Salimon
Iezzi, Giovanna
Pires, Juliana Rico
Zuza, Elizangela Partata
Piattelli, Adriano
Marcantonio Junior, Elcio
author_facet Pontes, Ana Emília Farias
Ribeiro, Fernando Salimon
Iezzi, Giovanna
Pires, Juliana Rico
Zuza, Elizangela Partata
Piattelli, Adriano
Marcantonio Junior, Elcio
author_sort Pontes, Ana Emília Farias
collection PubMed
description The present study aims to evaluate the influence of apicocoronal position and immediate and conventional loading in the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC). Thus, 36 implants were inserted in the edentulous mandible from six dogs. Three implants were installed in each hemimandible, in different positions in relation to the ridge: Bone Level (at crestal bone level), Minus 1 (one millimeter apical to crestal bone), and Minus 2 (two millimeters apical to crestal bone). In addition, each hemimandible was submitted to a loading protocol: immediate (prosthesis installed 24 hours after implantation) or conventional (prosthesis installed 120 days after implantation). Ninety days after, animals were killed, and implant and adjacent tissues were prepared for histometric analysis. BIC values from immediate loaded implants were 58.7%, 57.7%, and 51.1%, respectively, while conventional loaded implants were 61.8%, 53.8%, and 68.4%. Differences statistically significant were not observed among groups (P = 0.10, ANOVA test). These findings suggest that different apicocoronal positioning and loading protocols evaluated did not interfere in the percentage of bone-implant contact, suggesting that these procedures did not jeopardize osseointegration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4211156
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42111562014-11-04 Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading Pontes, Ana Emília Farias Ribeiro, Fernando Salimon Iezzi, Giovanna Pires, Juliana Rico Zuza, Elizangela Partata Piattelli, Adriano Marcantonio Junior, Elcio ScientificWorldJournal Research Article The present study aims to evaluate the influence of apicocoronal position and immediate and conventional loading in the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC). Thus, 36 implants were inserted in the edentulous mandible from six dogs. Three implants were installed in each hemimandible, in different positions in relation to the ridge: Bone Level (at crestal bone level), Minus 1 (one millimeter apical to crestal bone), and Minus 2 (two millimeters apical to crestal bone). In addition, each hemimandible was submitted to a loading protocol: immediate (prosthesis installed 24 hours after implantation) or conventional (prosthesis installed 120 days after implantation). Ninety days after, animals were killed, and implant and adjacent tissues were prepared for histometric analysis. BIC values from immediate loaded implants were 58.7%, 57.7%, and 51.1%, respectively, while conventional loaded implants were 61.8%, 53.8%, and 68.4%. Differences statistically significant were not observed among groups (P = 0.10, ANOVA test). These findings suggest that different apicocoronal positioning and loading protocols evaluated did not interfere in the percentage of bone-implant contact, suggesting that these procedures did not jeopardize osseointegration. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2014 2014-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4211156/ /pubmed/25371911 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/606947 Text en Copyright © 2014 Ana Emília Farias Pontes et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pontes, Ana Emília Farias
Ribeiro, Fernando Salimon
Iezzi, Giovanna
Pires, Juliana Rico
Zuza, Elizangela Partata
Piattelli, Adriano
Marcantonio Junior, Elcio
Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading
title Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading
title_full Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading
title_fullStr Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading
title_full_unstemmed Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading
title_short Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading
title_sort bone-implant contact around crestal and subcrestal dental implants submitted to immediate and conventional loading
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211156/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25371911
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/606947
work_keys_str_mv AT pontesanaemiliafarias boneimplantcontactaroundcrestalandsubcrestaldentalimplantssubmittedtoimmediateandconventionalloading
AT ribeirofernandosalimon boneimplantcontactaroundcrestalandsubcrestaldentalimplantssubmittedtoimmediateandconventionalloading
AT iezzigiovanna boneimplantcontactaroundcrestalandsubcrestaldentalimplantssubmittedtoimmediateandconventionalloading
AT piresjulianarico boneimplantcontactaroundcrestalandsubcrestaldentalimplantssubmittedtoimmediateandconventionalloading
AT zuzaelizangelapartata boneimplantcontactaroundcrestalandsubcrestaldentalimplantssubmittedtoimmediateandconventionalloading
AT piattelliadriano boneimplantcontactaroundcrestalandsubcrestaldentalimplantssubmittedtoimmediateandconventionalloading
AT marcantoniojuniorelcio boneimplantcontactaroundcrestalandsubcrestaldentalimplantssubmittedtoimmediateandconventionalloading