Share Page:

Volume 14 , Issue 6
November/December 1999

Pages 824–834

Clinical and Histologic Evaluation of Submerged and Nonsubmerged Hydroxyapatite-Coated Implants: A Preliminary Study in Dogs

Ralf-J. Kohal, DMD, Manuel De LaRosa, DDS, Resident, UTHHSC, Daniel Patrick, DDS, MSD, Markus B. Hürzeler, DMD, PhD, Raul G. Caffesse, DDS, MS, Dr Odont

PMID: 10612919

A clinical and histologic study was performed to evaluate the differences in the healing of submerged and nonsubmerged hydroxyapatite-coated 2-piece implants. Three foxhounds were used for this evaluation. Mandibular premolars 1, 2, 3, and 4 were extracted. Three months later, 2 submerged implants were placed on one side of the mandible, and 2 nonsubmerged implants were placed on the other side of the mandible. After 3 months of healing, the submerged implants were exposed, and a third implant was placed on each side of the mandible in a nonsubmerged procedure. Clinical parameters were recorded, the animals were sacrificed 6 months after placement of the first implants, and histologic and histometric analyses were performed. Results of the evaluation of the clinical parameters showed only minor differences among the different treatment groups. Regarding the percentage of bone-to-implant contact of the different treatment groups, the submerged implants showed a bone-to-implant contact of 63.4%, the nonsubmerged implants showed 70.3% contact, and the late nonsubmerged implants demonstrated a bone-to-implant contact of 58.7%. The average distance from the implant neck to the first bone-to-implant contact (fBIC) for submerged implants was 0.58 mm, for nonsubmerged implants it was 1.09 mm, and it was 1.13 mm for late nonsubmerged implants. The vertical distance between the gingival margin and the apical extent of the junctional epithelium (aJE) varied from 1.14 mm to 1.28 mm in the different groups. The distance from the aJE to fBIC was 1.00 mm for the submerged group, 1.08 mm for the nonsubmerged group, and 1.00 mm for the late nonsubmerged group. Generally, it can be concluded that the clinical and the histologic behavior of submerged or nonsubmerged 2-piece implants utilized in this experiment do not differ. (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:824–834) Key words: animal experiment, clinical evaluation, histologic evaluation, hydroxyapatite-coated implants, nonsubmerged (transmucosal) implants, osseointegration, 2-piece implants

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us