The combined effects of undersized drilling and implant macrogeometry on bone healing around dental implants: An experimental study

R. Jimbo, N. Tovar, R. B. Anchieta, L. S. MacHado, C. Marin, H. S. Teixeira, Paulo Coelho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of undersized preparations with two different implant macrogeometries. There were four experimental groups: group 1, conical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.2mm; group 2, conical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.5mm; group 3, cylindrical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.2mm; group 4, cylindrical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.5mm. Implants were placed in one side of the sheep mandible (n =6). After 3 weeks, the same procedure was conducted on the other side; 3 weeks later, euthanasia was performed. All implants were 4mm×10mm. Insertion torque was recorded for all implants during implantation. Retrieved samples were subjected to histological sectioning and histomorphometry. Implants of groups 1 and 2 presented significantly higher insertion torque than those of groups 3 and 4 (P <0.001). No differences in bone-to-implant contact or bone area fraction occupied were observed between the groups at 3 weeks (P >0.24, and P >0.25, respectively), whereas significant differences were observed at 6 weeks between groups 1 and 2, and between groups 3 and 4 (P <0.01). Undersized drilling affected the biological establishment of bone formation around both dental implant macrogeometries.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1269-1275
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume43
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014

Fingerprint

Dental Implants
Osteotomy
Bone and Bones
Torque
Euthanasia
Mandible
Osteogenesis
Sheep

Keywords

  • conical implants
  • cylindrical implants
  • undersized preparation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

The combined effects of undersized drilling and implant macrogeometry on bone healing around dental implants : An experimental study. / Jimbo, R.; Tovar, N.; Anchieta, R. B.; MacHado, L. S.; Marin, C.; Teixeira, H. S.; Coelho, Paulo.

In: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 43, No. 10, 01.10.2014, p. 1269-1275.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jimbo, R. ; Tovar, N. ; Anchieta, R. B. ; MacHado, L. S. ; Marin, C. ; Teixeira, H. S. ; Coelho, Paulo. / The combined effects of undersized drilling and implant macrogeometry on bone healing around dental implants : An experimental study. In: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2014 ; Vol. 43, No. 10. pp. 1269-1275.
@article{6c05d3c6ff2040c5af52ce7bc246e699,
title = "The combined effects of undersized drilling and implant macrogeometry on bone healing around dental implants: An experimental study",
abstract = "This study investigated the effect of undersized preparations with two different implant macrogeometries. There were four experimental groups: group 1, conical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.2mm; group 2, conical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.5mm; group 3, cylindrical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.2mm; group 4, cylindrical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.5mm. Implants were placed in one side of the sheep mandible (n =6). After 3 weeks, the same procedure was conducted on the other side; 3 weeks later, euthanasia was performed. All implants were 4mm×10mm. Insertion torque was recorded for all implants during implantation. Retrieved samples were subjected to histological sectioning and histomorphometry. Implants of groups 1 and 2 presented significantly higher insertion torque than those of groups 3 and 4 (P <0.001). No differences in bone-to-implant contact or bone area fraction occupied were observed between the groups at 3 weeks (P >0.24, and P >0.25, respectively), whereas significant differences were observed at 6 weeks between groups 1 and 2, and between groups 3 and 4 (P <0.01). Undersized drilling affected the biological establishment of bone formation around both dental implant macrogeometries.",
keywords = "conical implants, cylindrical implants, undersized preparation",
author = "R. Jimbo and N. Tovar and Anchieta, {R. B.} and MacHado, {L. S.} and C. Marin and Teixeira, {H. S.} and Paulo Coelho",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "1269--1275",
journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery",
issn = "0901-5027",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The combined effects of undersized drilling and implant macrogeometry on bone healing around dental implants

T2 - An experimental study

AU - Jimbo, R.

AU - Tovar, N.

AU - Anchieta, R. B.

AU - MacHado, L. S.

AU - Marin, C.

AU - Teixeira, H. S.

AU - Coelho, Paulo

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - This study investigated the effect of undersized preparations with two different implant macrogeometries. There were four experimental groups: group 1, conical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.2mm; group 2, conical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.5mm; group 3, cylindrical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.2mm; group 4, cylindrical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.5mm. Implants were placed in one side of the sheep mandible (n =6). After 3 weeks, the same procedure was conducted on the other side; 3 weeks later, euthanasia was performed. All implants were 4mm×10mm. Insertion torque was recorded for all implants during implantation. Retrieved samples were subjected to histological sectioning and histomorphometry. Implants of groups 1 and 2 presented significantly higher insertion torque than those of groups 3 and 4 (P <0.001). No differences in bone-to-implant contact or bone area fraction occupied were observed between the groups at 3 weeks (P >0.24, and P >0.25, respectively), whereas significant differences were observed at 6 weeks between groups 1 and 2, and between groups 3 and 4 (P <0.01). Undersized drilling affected the biological establishment of bone formation around both dental implant macrogeometries.

AB - This study investigated the effect of undersized preparations with two different implant macrogeometries. There were four experimental groups: group 1, conical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.2mm; group 2, conical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.5mm; group 3, cylindrical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.2mm; group 4, cylindrical implant with an undersized osteotomy of 3.5mm. Implants were placed in one side of the sheep mandible (n =6). After 3 weeks, the same procedure was conducted on the other side; 3 weeks later, euthanasia was performed. All implants were 4mm×10mm. Insertion torque was recorded for all implants during implantation. Retrieved samples were subjected to histological sectioning and histomorphometry. Implants of groups 1 and 2 presented significantly higher insertion torque than those of groups 3 and 4 (P <0.001). No differences in bone-to-implant contact or bone area fraction occupied were observed between the groups at 3 weeks (P >0.24, and P >0.25, respectively), whereas significant differences were observed at 6 weeks between groups 1 and 2, and between groups 3 and 4 (P <0.01). Undersized drilling affected the biological establishment of bone formation around both dental implant macrogeometries.

KW - conical implants

KW - cylindrical implants

KW - undersized preparation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908111837&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908111837&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.017

DO - 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.03.017

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 1269

EP - 1275

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

SN - 0901-5027

IS - 10

ER -