LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 17 , Issue 4
July/August 2002

Pages 467472


Influence of the Microgap in the Peri-implant Hard and Soft Tissues: A Histomorphometric Study in Dogs

Francisco F. Todescan, DDS, MS, Francisco E. Pustiglioni, DDS, MS, Ana V. Imbronito, DDS, MS Tomas Albrektsson, MD, PhD, Odhc, Marco Gioso, MD, MS, DVM, DDS


PMID: 12182289

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the dimensions and relationships of the periimplant tissues surrounding osseointegrated 2-stage implants placed at different depths in bone. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four implants were placed in the mandibles of 4 mongrel dogs. A modification of the surgical protocol was introduced so that in group I, implants remained 1 mm above the bone crest; in group II, implants were placed level with the bone crest; and group III implants were countersunk to approximately 1 mm below the bone crest. After 3 months, abutment operations were carried out with the placement of 3-mm standard abutments. Following a healing period of 3 months the dogs were sacrificed. A total of 20 implants were available for histometric analysis. Non-decalcified sections were evaluated for the dimensions of the junctional epithelium, connective tissue band, marginal bone level, and bone-to-metal contact. Results: Histologic observations showed a mucosal barrier consisting of keratinized oral epithelium continuous with a thin junctional epithelium facing the implant and abutment surface. Junctional epithelium showed a mean of 1.67 mm for group I, 1.93 mm for group II, and 2.78 mm for group III. These values were not statistically different. The band of connective tissue had a mean of 1.13 mm for group I, 0.92 mm for group II, and 1.60 mm for group III. These values were not statistically different, except for group II versus group III. Bone level had a mean of 2.50 mm for group I, 2.30 mm for group II, and 1.60 mm for group III. These differences were significant between groups I and III. The surface of bone contact along the implant (BMC%) showed mean values of 46.8% in group I, 53.7% in group II, and 49.0% in group III (no significant differences among the 3 groups). Discussion: There was a clear tendency of the epithelium and connective tissue to be longer the deeper the implants were placed, although those differences were not statistically significant. Bone loss was smaller for group III (countersink group). This is not in accordance with recent articles which have stated that bone will maintain its biologic width. Conclusions: When the microgap between implants and abutments was placed deeper in the bone, additional bone loss did not result. (INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2002;17:467472)


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.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help