Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading

Abstract

The present study aims to evaluate the influence of apicocoronal position and immediate and conventional loading in the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC). Thus, 36 implants were inserted in the edentulous mandible from six dogs. Three implants were installed in each hemimandible, in different positions in relation to the ridge: Bone Level (at crestal bone level), Minus 1 (one millimeter apical to crestal bone), and Minus 2 (two millimeters apical to crestal bone). In addition, each hemimandible was submitted to a loading protocol: immediate (prosthesis installed 24 hours after implantation) or conventional (prosthesis installed 120 days after implantation). Ninety days after, animals were killed, and implant and adjacent tissues were prepared for histometric analysis. BIC values from immediate loaded implants were 58.7%, 57.7%, and 51.1%, respectively, while conventional loaded implants were 61.8%, 53.8%, and 68.4%. Differences statistically significant were not observed among groups (P = 0.10, ANOVA test). These findings suggest that different apicocoronal positioning and loading protocols evaluated did not interfere in the percentage of bone-implant contact, suggesting that these procedures did not jeopardize osseointegration.

Reflection of an ultrasonic wave on the bone-implant interface: A numerical study of the effect of the multiscale roughness

“…Third, the variation of the periprosthetic bone geometrical properties was modeled by a bone level given by the parameter W and actual bone geometry around the implant surface is likely to be more complex. Note that typical BIC values are comprised between 30% and 80% (Scarano et al, 2006;Mathieu et al, 2012;Pontes et al, 2014;Vayron et al, 2014c). Therefore, fully bonded interfaces are not likely to occur in vivo.…”

Fixed Prosthetic Restorations With Sandblasted Surface Implants: Long-term Results of a Clinical Study

“…Three implants were placed in each hemimandible, in crestal and subcrestally position, and submitted to an immediate loading protocol (24 hours) or conventional loading protocol (four months). Ninety days after loading, the histomorphometric analysis showed no statistical differences between the BIC values from immediate to conventional loading, suggesting that the different implant position and the loading protocol does not affect to the BIC value in sandblasted surfaces [24].…”

“…Pontes et al [24] conducted an in vivo study with the aim of evaluating the influence of the implant position onto the bone in the bone-implant contact (BIC), comparing both conventional and immediate loading in sandblasted implants. Thirty-six sandblasted implants were inserted in the edentulous mandible of six dogs.…”

Immediate loading over lower prosthesis in edentulous mandibles: comparison between two types of prosthetic connection

“…The bone area in the immediate loading group (92.9%) was higher than in the early loading group (81.4%), but no statistical difference was observed. Similarly, Pontes et al 24 , compared the bone area in contact with implants placed in different positions undergoing early or late loading and observed no significant differences. In the present…”