Influence of placement depth on bone remodeling around tapered internal connection implants: A histologic study in dogs

Baoxin Huang, Huanxin Meng, Weidong Zhu, Lukasz Witek, Nick Tovar, Paulo Coelho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of implant-abutment interface (IAI) placement depth on bone remodeling around implants with two different types of tapered internal IAI: screwed-in (SI) and tapped-in (TI) connections in dogs. Materials and methods: Eight weeks post mandibular tooth extraction in six beagle dogs, two SI implants (OsseoSpeed™, Astra Tech, DENTSPLY) and two TI implants (Integra-CP™, Bicon LLC) were placed in one side of the mandible. The four experimental groups were as follows: (i) SI-placed equicrestally (SIC); (ii) TI-placed equicrestally (TIC); (iii) SI-placed 1.5 mm subcrestally (SIS); and (iv) TI-placed 1.5 mm subcrestally (TIS). Healing abutments were connected 12 weeks after implant placement. Sixteen weeks later, the dogs were sacrificed and histomorphometric analysis was performed. Histometrical outcomes were evaluated using a nonparametric Brunner-Langer model. Results: Mean distance from the IAI to first bone-implant contact (IAI-fBIC) was 0.88 mm (median: 0.77; SD: 0.54) for SIC group, 1.23 mm (median: 1.22; SD: 0.66) for TIC group, 0.41 mm (median: 0.31; SD: 0.36) for SIS group, and 0.41 mm (median: 0.26; SD: 0.45) for TIS group. Subcrestal groups showed lower IAI-fBIC compared with equicrestal groups (P < 0.001). Connective tissue presented similar measurements regardless of the IAI placement depth and IAI type (P > 0.05), but the epithelium length and peri-implant soft tissue length in subcrestal groups were significant larger than that in the equicrestal groups (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Conclusion: Subcrestal implant placement with tapered internal IAI is beneficial for bone contact with the implant neck, and concurrently, it may not increase the soft tissue inflammation around IAI.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)942-949
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Oral Implants Research
Volume26
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2015

Fingerprint

Bone Remodeling
Dogs
Bone and Bones
Tooth Extraction
Mandible
Neck
Epithelium
Inflammation

Keywords

  • animal study
  • biologic width
  • crestal bone resorption
  • implant-abutment interface
  • subcrestal placement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Influence of placement depth on bone remodeling around tapered internal connection implants : A histologic study in dogs. / Huang, Baoxin; Meng, Huanxin; Zhu, Weidong; Witek, Lukasz; Tovar, Nick; Coelho, Paulo.

In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 26, No. 8, 01.08.2015, p. 942-949.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b960ee35f1a04c7984c7ec419e579ec0,
title = "Influence of placement depth on bone remodeling around tapered internal connection implants: A histologic study in dogs",
abstract = "Objectives: To evaluate the influence of implant-abutment interface (IAI) placement depth on bone remodeling around implants with two different types of tapered internal IAI: screwed-in (SI) and tapped-in (TI) connections in dogs. Materials and methods: Eight weeks post mandibular tooth extraction in six beagle dogs, two SI implants (OsseoSpeed™, Astra Tech, DENTSPLY) and two TI implants (Integra-CP™, Bicon LLC) were placed in one side of the mandible. The four experimental groups were as follows: (i) SI-placed equicrestally (SIC); (ii) TI-placed equicrestally (TIC); (iii) SI-placed 1.5 mm subcrestally (SIS); and (iv) TI-placed 1.5 mm subcrestally (TIS). Healing abutments were connected 12 weeks after implant placement. Sixteen weeks later, the dogs were sacrificed and histomorphometric analysis was performed. Histometrical outcomes were evaluated using a nonparametric Brunner-Langer model. Results: Mean distance from the IAI to first bone-implant contact (IAI-fBIC) was 0.88 mm (median: 0.77; SD: 0.54) for SIC group, 1.23 mm (median: 1.22; SD: 0.66) for TIC group, 0.41 mm (median: 0.31; SD: 0.36) for SIS group, and 0.41 mm (median: 0.26; SD: 0.45) for TIS group. Subcrestal groups showed lower IAI-fBIC compared with equicrestal groups (P < 0.001). Connective tissue presented similar measurements regardless of the IAI placement depth and IAI type (P > 0.05), but the epithelium length and peri-implant soft tissue length in subcrestal groups were significant larger than that in the equicrestal groups (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Conclusion: Subcrestal implant placement with tapered internal IAI is beneficial for bone contact with the implant neck, and concurrently, it may not increase the soft tissue inflammation around IAI.",
keywords = "animal study, biologic width, crestal bone resorption, implant-abutment interface, subcrestal placement",
author = "Baoxin Huang and Huanxin Meng and Weidong Zhu and Lukasz Witek and Nick Tovar and Paulo Coelho",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/clr.12384",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "942--949",
journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",
issn = "0905-7161",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of placement depth on bone remodeling around tapered internal connection implants

T2 - A histologic study in dogs

AU - Huang, Baoxin

AU - Meng, Huanxin

AU - Zhu, Weidong

AU - Witek, Lukasz

AU - Tovar, Nick

AU - Coelho, Paulo

PY - 2015/8/1

Y1 - 2015/8/1

N2 - Objectives: To evaluate the influence of implant-abutment interface (IAI) placement depth on bone remodeling around implants with two different types of tapered internal IAI: screwed-in (SI) and tapped-in (TI) connections in dogs. Materials and methods: Eight weeks post mandibular tooth extraction in six beagle dogs, two SI implants (OsseoSpeed™, Astra Tech, DENTSPLY) and two TI implants (Integra-CP™, Bicon LLC) were placed in one side of the mandible. The four experimental groups were as follows: (i) SI-placed equicrestally (SIC); (ii) TI-placed equicrestally (TIC); (iii) SI-placed 1.5 mm subcrestally (SIS); and (iv) TI-placed 1.5 mm subcrestally (TIS). Healing abutments were connected 12 weeks after implant placement. Sixteen weeks later, the dogs were sacrificed and histomorphometric analysis was performed. Histometrical outcomes were evaluated using a nonparametric Brunner-Langer model. Results: Mean distance from the IAI to first bone-implant contact (IAI-fBIC) was 0.88 mm (median: 0.77; SD: 0.54) for SIC group, 1.23 mm (median: 1.22; SD: 0.66) for TIC group, 0.41 mm (median: 0.31; SD: 0.36) for SIS group, and 0.41 mm (median: 0.26; SD: 0.45) for TIS group. Subcrestal groups showed lower IAI-fBIC compared with equicrestal groups (P < 0.001). Connective tissue presented similar measurements regardless of the IAI placement depth and IAI type (P > 0.05), but the epithelium length and peri-implant soft tissue length in subcrestal groups were significant larger than that in the equicrestal groups (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Conclusion: Subcrestal implant placement with tapered internal IAI is beneficial for bone contact with the implant neck, and concurrently, it may not increase the soft tissue inflammation around IAI.

AB - Objectives: To evaluate the influence of implant-abutment interface (IAI) placement depth on bone remodeling around implants with two different types of tapered internal IAI: screwed-in (SI) and tapped-in (TI) connections in dogs. Materials and methods: Eight weeks post mandibular tooth extraction in six beagle dogs, two SI implants (OsseoSpeed™, Astra Tech, DENTSPLY) and two TI implants (Integra-CP™, Bicon LLC) were placed in one side of the mandible. The four experimental groups were as follows: (i) SI-placed equicrestally (SIC); (ii) TI-placed equicrestally (TIC); (iii) SI-placed 1.5 mm subcrestally (SIS); and (iv) TI-placed 1.5 mm subcrestally (TIS). Healing abutments were connected 12 weeks after implant placement. Sixteen weeks later, the dogs were sacrificed and histomorphometric analysis was performed. Histometrical outcomes were evaluated using a nonparametric Brunner-Langer model. Results: Mean distance from the IAI to first bone-implant contact (IAI-fBIC) was 0.88 mm (median: 0.77; SD: 0.54) for SIC group, 1.23 mm (median: 1.22; SD: 0.66) for TIC group, 0.41 mm (median: 0.31; SD: 0.36) for SIS group, and 0.41 mm (median: 0.26; SD: 0.45) for TIS group. Subcrestal groups showed lower IAI-fBIC compared with equicrestal groups (P < 0.001). Connective tissue presented similar measurements regardless of the IAI placement depth and IAI type (P > 0.05), but the epithelium length and peri-implant soft tissue length in subcrestal groups were significant larger than that in the equicrestal groups (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Conclusion: Subcrestal implant placement with tapered internal IAI is beneficial for bone contact with the implant neck, and concurrently, it may not increase the soft tissue inflammation around IAI.

KW - animal study

KW - biologic width

KW - crestal bone resorption

KW - implant-abutment interface

KW - subcrestal placement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84935745085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84935745085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/clr.12384

DO - 10.1111/clr.12384

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 942

EP - 949

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

SN - 0905-7161

IS - 8

ER -