The Effects of Subcrestal Implant Placement on Crestal Bone Levels and Bone-to-Abutment Contact: A Microcomputed Tomographic and Histologic Study in Dogs

Michael Fetner, Alan Fetner, Theofilos Koutouzis, Emanuele Clozza, Nick Tovar, Alvin Sarendranath, Paulo Coelho, Kathleen Neiva, Malvin N. Janal, Rodrigo Neiva

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE: Implant design and the implant-abutment interface have been regarded as key influences on crestal bone maintenance over time. The aim of the present study was to determine crestal bone changes around implants placed at different depths in a dog model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six two-piece dental implants with a medialized implant-abutment interface and Morse taper connection (Ankylos, Dentsply) were placed in edentulous areas bilaterally in six mongrel dogs. On each side of the mandible, three implants were placed randomly at the bone crest, 1.5 mm subcrestally, or 3.0 mm subcrestally. After 3 months, the final abutments were torqued into place. At 6 months, the animals were sacrificed and samples taken for microcomputed tomographic (micro-CT) and histologic evaluations.

RESULTS: Micro-CT analysis revealed similar crestal or marginal bone loss among groups. Both subcrestal implant groups lost significantly less crestal and marginal bone than the equicrestal implants. Bone loss was greatest on the buccal of the implants, regardless of implant placement depth. Histologically, implants placed subcrestally were found to have bone in contact with the final abutment and on the implant platform.

CONCLUSION: Implants with a centralized implant-abutment interface and Morse taper connection can be placed subcrestally without significant loss of crestal or marginal bone. Subcrestal placement of this implant system appears to be advantageous in maintaining bone height coronal to the implant platform.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1068-1075
Number of pages8
JournalThe International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Volume30
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2015

Fingerprint

Dogs
Bone and Bones
Dental Implants
Cheek
Mandible
Maintenance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

The Effects of Subcrestal Implant Placement on Crestal Bone Levels and Bone-to-Abutment Contact : A Microcomputed Tomographic and Histologic Study in Dogs. / Fetner, Michael; Fetner, Alan; Koutouzis, Theofilos; Clozza, Emanuele; Tovar, Nick; Sarendranath, Alvin; Coelho, Paulo; Neiva, Kathleen; Janal, Malvin N.; Neiva, Rodrigo.

In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, Vol. 30, No. 5, 01.09.2015, p. 1068-1075.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fetner, Michael ; Fetner, Alan ; Koutouzis, Theofilos ; Clozza, Emanuele ; Tovar, Nick ; Sarendranath, Alvin ; Coelho, Paulo ; Neiva, Kathleen ; Janal, Malvin N. ; Neiva, Rodrigo. / The Effects of Subcrestal Implant Placement on Crestal Bone Levels and Bone-to-Abutment Contact : A Microcomputed Tomographic and Histologic Study in Dogs. In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2015 ; Vol. 30, No. 5. pp. 1068-1075.
@article{d94133c5088447f7aa8031bfbb3f141a,
title = "The Effects of Subcrestal Implant Placement on Crestal Bone Levels and Bone-to-Abutment Contact: A Microcomputed Tomographic and Histologic Study in Dogs",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Implant design and the implant-abutment interface have been regarded as key influences on crestal bone maintenance over time. The aim of the present study was to determine crestal bone changes around implants placed at different depths in a dog model.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six two-piece dental implants with a medialized implant-abutment interface and Morse taper connection (Ankylos, Dentsply) were placed in edentulous areas bilaterally in six mongrel dogs. On each side of the mandible, three implants were placed randomly at the bone crest, 1.5 mm subcrestally, or 3.0 mm subcrestally. After 3 months, the final abutments were torqued into place. At 6 months, the animals were sacrificed and samples taken for microcomputed tomographic (micro-CT) and histologic evaluations.RESULTS: Micro-CT analysis revealed similar crestal or marginal bone loss among groups. Both subcrestal implant groups lost significantly less crestal and marginal bone than the equicrestal implants. Bone loss was greatest on the buccal of the implants, regardless of implant placement depth. Histologically, implants placed subcrestally were found to have bone in contact with the final abutment and on the implant platform.CONCLUSION: Implants with a centralized implant-abutment interface and Morse taper connection can be placed subcrestally without significant loss of crestal or marginal bone. Subcrestal placement of this implant system appears to be advantageous in maintaining bone height coronal to the implant platform.",
author = "Michael Fetner and Alan Fetner and Theofilos Koutouzis and Emanuele Clozza and Nick Tovar and Alvin Sarendranath and Paulo Coelho and Kathleen Neiva and Janal, {Malvin N.} and Rodrigo Neiva",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.11607/jomi.4043",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "1068--1075",
journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Effects of Subcrestal Implant Placement on Crestal Bone Levels and Bone-to-Abutment Contact

T2 - A Microcomputed Tomographic and Histologic Study in Dogs

AU - Fetner, Michael

AU - Fetner, Alan

AU - Koutouzis, Theofilos

AU - Clozza, Emanuele

AU - Tovar, Nick

AU - Sarendranath, Alvin

AU - Coelho, Paulo

AU - Neiva, Kathleen

AU - Janal, Malvin N.

AU - Neiva, Rodrigo

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - PURPOSE: Implant design and the implant-abutment interface have been regarded as key influences on crestal bone maintenance over time. The aim of the present study was to determine crestal bone changes around implants placed at different depths in a dog model.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six two-piece dental implants with a medialized implant-abutment interface and Morse taper connection (Ankylos, Dentsply) were placed in edentulous areas bilaterally in six mongrel dogs. On each side of the mandible, three implants were placed randomly at the bone crest, 1.5 mm subcrestally, or 3.0 mm subcrestally. After 3 months, the final abutments were torqued into place. At 6 months, the animals were sacrificed and samples taken for microcomputed tomographic (micro-CT) and histologic evaluations.RESULTS: Micro-CT analysis revealed similar crestal or marginal bone loss among groups. Both subcrestal implant groups lost significantly less crestal and marginal bone than the equicrestal implants. Bone loss was greatest on the buccal of the implants, regardless of implant placement depth. Histologically, implants placed subcrestally were found to have bone in contact with the final abutment and on the implant platform.CONCLUSION: Implants with a centralized implant-abutment interface and Morse taper connection can be placed subcrestally without significant loss of crestal or marginal bone. Subcrestal placement of this implant system appears to be advantageous in maintaining bone height coronal to the implant platform.

AB - PURPOSE: Implant design and the implant-abutment interface have been regarded as key influences on crestal bone maintenance over time. The aim of the present study was to determine crestal bone changes around implants placed at different depths in a dog model.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six two-piece dental implants with a medialized implant-abutment interface and Morse taper connection (Ankylos, Dentsply) were placed in edentulous areas bilaterally in six mongrel dogs. On each side of the mandible, three implants were placed randomly at the bone crest, 1.5 mm subcrestally, or 3.0 mm subcrestally. After 3 months, the final abutments were torqued into place. At 6 months, the animals were sacrificed and samples taken for microcomputed tomographic (micro-CT) and histologic evaluations.RESULTS: Micro-CT analysis revealed similar crestal or marginal bone loss among groups. Both subcrestal implant groups lost significantly less crestal and marginal bone than the equicrestal implants. Bone loss was greatest on the buccal of the implants, regardless of implant placement depth. Histologically, implants placed subcrestally were found to have bone in contact with the final abutment and on the implant platform.CONCLUSION: Implants with a centralized implant-abutment interface and Morse taper connection can be placed subcrestally without significant loss of crestal or marginal bone. Subcrestal placement of this implant system appears to be advantageous in maintaining bone height coronal to the implant platform.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84983474703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84983474703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11607/jomi.4043

DO - 10.11607/jomi.4043

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 1068

EP - 1075

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 5

ER -