P.Y. KANG1, D. SARMENT2, and S.J. MERAW2, 1Former student at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Boston, MA, USA, 2University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
Objectives: Despite
variable degrees of alveolar crest remodeling for different implants, necessary
distances when placing implants next to natural teeth or other implants have
been assumed. Frequently, this results
in unfavorable crestal morphology that leads to impaired development of
interdental papillae and eventually, to an esthetic compromise of
prosthesis. This study involves
determination of the biologic widths, heights, and angles of “bony cuffs” of
various implants, areas of the peri-implant osseous tissue at the alveolar
crest, in attempts to determine an ideal implant-specific placement protocol.
Methods: The project is a prospective
randomized descriptive experimental study.
Sixty 3i Osseotite® standard, wide and XP implants were randomly
placed in 5 Mongrel dogs using the standard protocol. Following abutment attachments, standardized radiographs were
made at baseline, then 4-week intervals for 2 months. Linear dimensions on each
digitized implant image were measured with Image-Pro Plus on 3 separate
occasions by one calibrated examiner.
Measurements were collected from the abutment-fixture junctions to the
first bone contact both vertically and horizontally. All values were averaged
and evaluated with ANOVA.
|
Results:
|
Average
Heights (mm)
|
Average Widths (mm)
|
Average Angles (°)
|
|
Time 0
|
Time 1
|
Time 2
|
Time 1
|
Time 2
|
Time 2
|
Time 0
|
Time 1
|
Time 2
|
|
Standard
|
1.20
|
1.41
|
1.65
|
1.29
|
1.65
|
1.89
|
48.88
|
54.50
|
55.56
|
|
Wide
|
1.06
|
1.26
|
1.44
|
1.01
|
1.25
|
1.60
|
42.63
|
47.19
|
49.94
|
|
XP
|
1.38
|
1.57
|
1.77
|
0.89
|
1.14
|
1.39
|
41.61
|
46.19
|
49.21
|
Conclusions: There are
statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between times for all types
of implants which demonstrate that the remodeling is taking place as
expected. XP implants show greatest
amounts of apical bone resorption, whereas bone structures around standard and
wide implants resorb more horizontally.
There appear to be implant-specific differences with respect to biologic
widths, heights, and angles within the limits of this study.
|