Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Effects of Surface Treatment Modification and Implant Design in Implants Placed Crestal and Subcrestally Applying Delayed Loading Protocol

Val, José Eduardo Maté Sánchez de DDS, PhD; Gómez-Moreno, Gerardo DDS, PhD; Ruiz-Linares, Matilde DDS, PhD; Prados-Frutos, Juan Carlos DDS, PhD; Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre DDS, PhD; Calvo-Guirado, José Luis PhD

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 28 - Issue 2 - p 552–558
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003209
Scientific Foundations

Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of the surface modification and cervical implant design on the bone remodeling in implants installed at the crestal and subcrestal bone level.

Methods: Ten American Fox Hound of approximately 1 year of age, each weighing approximately 14 to 15 kg, were used for this study. Two different dental implant macrodesign were used: cylindric-conical with 3.5 mm of diameter and 9 in length (implant A) and conical with 2.9 mm of diameter and 9 mm in length (implant B). Two surfaces were used: sandblasting and acid etching (surface 1) and sandblasting and acid etching, then maintained in an isotonic solution of 0.9% sodium chloride (surface 2). Four groups were performed (n = 20 implants): Group A1 (implant A with the surface 1), Group A2 (implant A with surface 2), Group B1 (implant B with surface 1), and Group B2 (implant B with surface 2). The mandibular premolars and molars (P1, P2, P3, M1) were removed and, after 2 months of healing, implants were inserted at the crestal and 2 mm subcrestal position related to the buccal bone level. Analysis was performed at 4 and 8 weeks. Histomorphometry with longitudinal measurements and bone implant contact, bone remodeling and implant stability quotient analysis were realized.

Results: The surface 2 showed to get more close contact between implant and new bone formed after implant placement and more stability surrounding platform both at 4 and 8 weeks. Surface 2 groups and subrestally placed showed to have better results in terms of linear measurements, with less bone loss and soft tissue distance to the IS. The data showed significant differences among the groups (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Surface modification (surface 2) has shown to be an effective alternative to conventional surface with better results in situations placed subcrestally and combined with implant design.

*International Dentistry Research Cathedra, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), Murcia

Post-Graduate Program in Implantology of the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada

Department of Stomatology, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid

§Biotechnology Cathedra

||International Dentistry Research Cathedra, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Prof Dr Sergio Alexandre Gehrke, DDS, PhD, Rua Dr Bozano, 571-CP: 97015-001, Santa Maria (RS), Brazil; E-mail: sergio.gehrke@hotmail.com

Received 12 July, 2016

Accepted 19 August, 2016

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

© 2017 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.