This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
While both implant types had a similar dimension and surface roughness, the test implants were designed with a microthread con\ufb01guration in the marginal portion. Abutment connection was performed after 3 months. Another 3 months later, \ufb01xed partial dentures (FPDs) were cemented to the maxillary canine and premolars and FPDs were con- nected to the implants in the mandible. Ten months later, the animals were sacri\ufb01ced and biopsies from each implant region were processed for histological analysis. Radiographs were obtained at implant placement after FPD connection and at the termination of the experiment.
in the evaluation of dental implants (for review, see Berglundh and colleagues1), and certain threshold levels of marginal bone loss have been suggested for dif- ferent criteria of implant success.2While \ufb01ndings from earlier clinical studies revealed that marginal bone loss was larger in the \ufb01rst year in function than during the subsequent years,3\u20135recent reports failed to con\ufb01rm such patterns of bone loss.6,7
The geometry and surface roughness of the implant may in\ufb02uence the ability to obtain or preserve marginal bone support. Implants designed with an unthreaded, conical marginal portion (Br\u00e5nemark System\u00ae, Nobel Biocare AB, G\u00f6teborg, Sweden) and commonly used in
Reprint requests: Ingemar Abrahamsson, Department of Periodon- tology, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, G\u00f6teborg University, PO Box 450, SE 405 30 G\u00f6teborg, Sweden; e-mail: Ingemar.Abrahamsson@odontologi.gu.se
single-tooth replacements consistently demonstrated enhanced marginal bone loss in comparison to standard implants of the same implant system.8\u201311It was sug- gested that the variation in bone loss between the two types of implants was related to differences in geometry and that osseointegration may occur to a less extent to implant parts with a conical con\ufb01guration. These \ufb01nd- ings are not consistent with data reported from studies on other implants with a conical marginal design. Implants outlined with a microthread con\ufb01guration within the marginal conical portion (Astra Tech ST\u00ae, Astra Tech AB, M\u00f6lndal, Sweden) have been evaluated in prospective studies on single-tooth replacement over 5 years.12,13The data presented revealed that the mar- ginal bone level changes over the 5-year periods were small and that suf\ufb01cient osseointegration appeared to have occurred also at conical parts of the implants. The obvious difference between the two types of implants referred to previously is con\ufb01ned to the presence or absence of microthreads within the conical con\ufb01gura- tion of the implant.
The protocol of the present study was approved by the regional Ethics Committee for Animal Research, G\u00f6te- borg, Sweden. Six beagle dogs, about 1 year old, were included. During all surgical procedures, the animals were under general anesthesia induced with propofol (10mg/mL, 0.6mL/kg) intravenously and sustained with N2O:O2(1 : 1.5\u20132) and iso\ufb02urane employing endo- tracheal intubation. The experimental design regarding implant installation and prosthetic procedures was recently described.14In brief, at the start of the experi- ment, all mandibular premolars (4P4, 3P3, 2P2, 1P1) were extracted. Three months later, a crestal incision was made and mucoperiostal \ufb02aps were raised in the eden- tulous premolar region in one side of the mandible. One test and two control implants were installed in a ran- domized order. Both implant types had a TiOblastTM (Astra Tech AB) surface, a diameter of 3.5 mm and were 8-mm long (Figure 1). The test implants had, in addition, a microthread con\ufb01guration in the marginal portion, while the corresponding part of the control implant was devoid of threads. The implants were placed in such a way that the implant margin coincided with the bone crest (Figure 2).
Radiographs were obtained immediately after \ufb01xture installation using a custom-made \ufb01lm holder device connected to the posterior implant.15In the radi- ographs, the distance between the abutment/\ufb01xture junction (A/F) and the marginal bone level (B) was
determined at the mesial and distal aspect of each implant. The measurements were carried out using a Leica DM-RBE\u00ae microscope (Leica, Germany) equipped with an image system (Q-500 MC\u00ae, Leica). Cover screws were placed and the \ufb02aps were sutured to cover the \ufb01xtures. The sutures were removed after 2 weeks.
Three months later, all implants were uncovered and Uni-abutments\u00ae (1.5mm/20\u00b0; Astra Tech Implants\u00ae Dental System, Astra Tech AB) were con- nected. The \ufb02aps were sutured and a new set of radi- ographs was obtained. Sutures were removed 2 weeks later and a plaque control program (daily cleaning of all exposed implant surfaces and neighboring teeth using toothbrush and dentifrice) was initiated and maintained until the end of the experiment.
Full crown preparations were made to the antago- nizing maxillary canine and premolars with a diamond bur. In the mandibular premolar regions, impression pickup copings were connected to the implants. Impres- sions from the maxillary and mandibular premolar seg- ments were obtained using individual acrylic impression trays and polyether impression materials (Impregum\u00ae and Permadyne\u00ae; ESPE, Seefeld, Germany).
Three months after abutment connection \ufb01xed partial dentures (FPDs) made in gold were cemented to the maxillary canine and premolars using an adhesive resin-cement (Panavia\u00ae 21; Kuraray Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan). FPDs were also connected to the implants in the mandible (Figure 3). Occlusal contact between the max- illary and mandibular premolar segment was estab- lished. Immediately after placement of the FPDs, a new set of radiographs from all implant sites was obtained.
The radiographic examination was repeated 10 months after the bridge connection, and a clinical exam- ination including assessments of plaque and soft tissue in\ufb02ammation was performed. The animals were sacri- \ufb01ced with an overdose of Sodium PentothalTM(Abbot Scandinavia AB, Sweden) and perfused with a \ufb01xative through the carotid arteries. The \ufb01xative consisted of a mixture of 5% glutaraldehyde and 4% formaldehyde buffered to pH 7.2.16The mandibles were removed and placed in the \ufb01xative. Each implant region was dissected using a diamond saw (Exakt\u00ae, Kulzer, Germany) and further processed for ground sectioning. The tissue blocks were dehydrated in serial steps of alcohol con- centrations and subsequently embedded in a methyl- methacrylate resin (Technovit\u00ae 7200 VLC, Exakt; Kulzer). Using a cutting-grinding unit and a micro- grinding system (EXAKT\u00ae; Apparatebau, Norderstedt, Germany), the blocks were cut in a mesio-distal plane and two central sections were obtained. From the buccal part of the tissue block (containing 40 to 45% of the implant and the surrounding tissues), two central sec- tions in a buccal-lingual plane were prepared. All sec- tions were reduced to a \ufb01nal thickness of approximately 20\u00b5m. Thus, from each implant block two mesio-distal and two buccal-lingual ground sections were obtained. The sections were stained in toluidine blue.17
The histometric and morphometric measurements were performed in a Leica DM-RBE microscope (Leica) equipped with an image system Q-500 MC (Leica). The following landmarks were used for the linear measure- ments (Figure 4): the marginal position of the peri-
implant mucosa (PM), the apical termination of the barrier (junctional) epithelium (aJE), the marginal level of bone to implant contact (B), and the level of the abut- ment/\ufb01xture border (A/F). The distances between the various landmarks were determined.
The bone-implant contact (BIC%) measurements, that is, the length fraction (%) of mineralized bone that was in direct contact with the implant surface, were per- formed at a magni\ufb01cation\u00d7 100. The analysis was con- \ufb01ned to the neck portion of both implants types, that is, the non-threaded part of the control implants and the corresponding dimension of the \u201cmicrothreaded\u201d part of the test implants (area I). A second area for BIC% assessments (area II) included the entire intraosseous portion of the implant.
The bone density (proportion of mineralized bone) analysis was carried out at a magni\ufb01cation\u00d7 200. A point-counting procedure was used to distinguish between mineralized and non-mineralized bone structures. A lattice comprising 100 light points was superimposed over the area to be examined and the various structures were identi\ufb01ed using a mouse cursor. The bone density assessments were restricted to a 400-\u00b5m-wide zone lateral to the implant within area I.
the histometric measurements. A/F= border between the
abutment and the \ufb01xture part of the implant; aJE= level of the
apical termination of the junctional epithelium; B= marginal
level of mineralized bone in contact with the implant; PM=
marginal portion of the peri-implant mucosa.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?