Retracted: Influence of the implant design on osseointegration and crestal bone resorption of immediate implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs

Abstract

Our findings suggest that less resorption may be expected when implants are inserted 2 mm subcrestally. Moreover, higher BIC values in the group of subcrestal implants were found.

Immediate implant placement into fresh extraction sockets versus delayed implants into healed sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Using fresh extraction sockets in a dog model, Calvo-Guirado 70 showed that surface-conditioned implants presents 8% more bone apposition and 1.07 mm less crestal bone resorption than surface non-conditioned implants after 12 weeks of healing. However, despite this encouraging result, there is still no consensus regarding whether any given surface modification is better than another 71 , or what is the most effective surface treatment for the immediate implants. We accepted our second null hypothesis: that implants inserted into fresh extraction sockets do not differ significantly from those inserted into healed sockets in terms of the associated marginal bone loss or soft tissue changes.…”

Retracted: A new cervical implant design compared with standard design in order to increase peri‐implant hard and soft tissue behavior: histomorphometric and histological study in dogs

“…The conservancy of bone around the implant especially in the buccal plate plays a crucial role on esthetics. Resorption of buccal plate may lead to exposed threads, thus affecting the esthetic of the treatment, even if prostheses are not still connected (Boquete-Castro et al 2015). In an effort to stabilize and/or control bone crest height relative to the apical portion of the implant, several new techniques and macro-and micro-designs of implants have been proposed (Bratu et al 2009;Nickenig et al 2009;Hermann et al 2011).…”

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

“…Different loading protocols were evaluated, because mechanical loading influences bone remodeling [ 11 ], and this variable was not considered in the studies from Hermann et al [ 2 ], Todescan et al [ 3 ], Negri et al [ 7 ], Boquete-Castro et al [ 8 ], and Calvo-Guirado et al [ 9 , 10 ], in which prostheses were not installed.…”

“…It is interesting to consider that apical positioning could benefit not only esthetics but also bone-implant contact (BIC). Negri et al [ 7 ], Boquete-Castro et al [ 8 ], and Calvo-Guirado et al [ 9 , 10 ] inserted implants at crestal level or 2 mm subcrestal, in dogs, under immediate implantation conditions. Then, comparisons were performed with regards to the use of different implant-prosthesis connections, and to different healing periods.…”