Peri‐implant alveolar bone resorption in an innovative peri‐implantitis murine model: Effect of implant surface and onset of infection

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the difference in alveolar bone resorption around implants after immediate placement in a bacterial induced experimental periimplantitis murine model. The various conditions that were examined were: Effect of implant surface characteristics and the onset of the induced infection. Materials and Methods: Screw-shaped titanium implants, smooth-surface or sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) coated, were inserted immediately after extraction of the first upper left molar, in 90 5-6-week-old BALB/c mice. The mice were infected with Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum 21 (early infection) or 42 days (delayed infection) after implantation. Six weeks post infection, bone volume around inserted implants was measured using micro-CT, and was compared to alveolar bone level around teeth. Histological analysis was also performed. Results: The level of bone loss was significantly higher around the implants compared to the teeth, for smooth surface implants the bone loss was higher than of the SLA surface in both control and infected groups with no statistical significance. The survival rate of the implants in immediate infection was 75% compared of the 100% survival of the delayed infection and control mice. There is no significant difference between the early and the delayed infection in alveolar bone loss level around the implants. Conclusions: This model can assist in studying the differences in alveolar bone resorption in different implants and their effect on the development of the disease. K E Y W O R D S compact fan-beam-type computerized tomography, delayed infection experimental periimplantitis, dental titanium implant, murine model, oral mixed infection in mice, SLA coated, smooth surface

Rodent peri-implantitis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis of morphological changes

“…Their length ranged from 1 mm to 4.5 mm, while their diameter ranged from 0.2 mm to 2 mm. While the machined surface implants were the most common (n=13), surface modifications were also employed (sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces [ 11 12 13 ], acid-etched surfaces [ 14 ], and hydroxyapatite-coated surfaces [ 15 ]). The implant surface properties were not reported in 6 studies [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 ].…”

“…Subsequently, an osseointegration phase was provided before initiating experimental peri-implantitis. This lasted at least 4 weeks in the majority of studies (n=21), with 3 studies having shorter durations of 7 days [ 16 ] and 21 days [ 11 13 ]. Implant failure during this phase was reported by 20 studies.…”

“…Details pertaining to the experimental protocols are summarized in Tables 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 . Several histological features of peri-implantitis were reported, including the apical migration and formation of pocket epithelium [ 19 22 ], degradation of collagen fibers [ 20 23 ] with concomitant inflammatory cell infiltration of the connective tissue [ 19 24 25 ], increased osteoclastogenesis [ 20 22 23 26 27 ], and MBL [ 11 13 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 29 30 ]. Although histology was performed in 22 studies, histomorphometric measurements of the MBL and supracrestal soft tissue alterations were reported in only 5 and 2 studies, respectively.…”

Hybrid system with stable structure of hard/soft tissue substitutes induces re‐osseointegration in a rat model of biofilm‐mediated peri‐implantitis

“…Thus, relevant animal models of diseases (e.g., peri-implantitis) provide the opportunity to explore pathogenic aspects as well as safety and efficacy of novel treatment modalities. 47 The model we used for our studies incorporates the pathogenic process characterized by osteolytic infection mediated by biofilm thereby allowing us to assess the impact of our hybrid construct on local/ systematic inflammatory response as well as on hard/soft tissue regeneration. Moreover, conventional murine models require approximately half a year for manifestation of peri-implantitis.…”

“…These include co‐existing medical/systemic conditions coupled with obstacles to histological examinations and genetic investigations. Thus, relevant animal models of diseases (e.g., peri‐implantitis) provide the opportunity to explore pathogenic aspects as well as safety and efficacy of novel treatment modalities 47 . The model we used for our studies incorporates the pathogenic process characterized by osteolytic infection mediated by biofilm thereby allowing us to assess the impact of our hybrid construct on local/ systematic inflammatory response as well as on hard/soft tissue regeneration.…”