Yuning Wang, Haicheng Wang, Xiaofan Chen, Ying Shi, Zuolin Wang
{"title":"Effects of Implant Diameter on Implant Stability and Osseointegration in the Early Stage in a Dog Model.","authors":"Yuning Wang, Haicheng Wang, Xiaofan Chen, Ying Shi, Zuolin Wang","doi":"10.11607/jomi.10089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To determine the optimal implant diameter under limited bone width by comparing the effects of implants with different diameters on implant stability, peri-implant bone stability, and osseointegration. In addition, to evaluate the reliability of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) in detecting osseointegration and marginal bone level (MBL). <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Mandibular premolars and first molars of seven beagle dogs were extracted. After 8 weeks, their mandibular models and radiographic information were collected to fabricate implant templates. Implant sites were randomly divided into three groups according to diameter: Ø3.3, Ø4.1, and Ø4.8 mm. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurement and radiographic evaluation were performed after surgery (baseline) and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Three dogs were euthanized at 4 weeks to observe osteogenesis and implant-tissue interface biology. Four dogs were euthanized at 12 weeks to observe osseointegration. Hard tissue sections were prepared to analyze osteogenesis (fluorescence double labeling) and osseointegration (methylene blue-acid fuchsin staining). <b>Results:</b> At baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, the ISQ values of Ø4.1- and Ø4.8-mm implants did not differ (<i>P</i> > .05), but both had higher values than the Ø3.3-mm implants (<i>P</i> < .05). The mean marginal bone resorption (MBR) associated with Ø3.3-, Ø4.1-, and Ø4.8-mm implants was 0.65 ± 0.58 mm, 0.37 ± 0.28 mm, and 0.73 ± 0.37 mm, respectively. The buccal MBR of Ø4.8-mm implants was significantly higher than that of Ø4.1-mm implants (<i>P</i> < .05). The bone-to-implant contact (BIC) percentage at 12 weeks did not differ for any group (<i>P</i> > .05). The correlation coefficients between the ISQ and MBL of the Ø3.3-, Ø4.1-, and Ø4.8-mm implants were -0.84 (<i>P</i> < .01), -0.90 (<i>P</i> < .001), and -0.93 (<i>P</i> < .001), respectively, while that between the ISQ and BIC was 0.15 (<i>P</i> > .05). <b>Conclusions:</b> During the early healing stage, the performance of Ø4.1- and Ø4.8-mm implants in terms of implant stability was better than that of Ø3.3-mm implants. Implant diameter may not influence BIC percentage. RFA can be used to evaluate implant stability and MBL but is not suitable to assess the degree of osseointegration.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"38 4","pages":"757-767"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10089","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the optimal implant diameter under limited bone width by comparing the effects of implants with different diameters on implant stability, peri-implant bone stability, and osseointegration. In addition, to evaluate the reliability of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) in detecting osseointegration and marginal bone level (MBL). Materials and Methods: Mandibular premolars and first molars of seven beagle dogs were extracted. After 8 weeks, their mandibular models and radiographic information were collected to fabricate implant templates. Implant sites were randomly divided into three groups according to diameter: Ø3.3, Ø4.1, and Ø4.8 mm. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurement and radiographic evaluation were performed after surgery (baseline) and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Three dogs were euthanized at 4 weeks to observe osteogenesis and implant-tissue interface biology. Four dogs were euthanized at 12 weeks to observe osseointegration. Hard tissue sections were prepared to analyze osteogenesis (fluorescence double labeling) and osseointegration (methylene blue-acid fuchsin staining). Results: At baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, the ISQ values of Ø4.1- and Ø4.8-mm implants did not differ (P > .05), but both had higher values than the Ø3.3-mm implants (P < .05). The mean marginal bone resorption (MBR) associated with Ø3.3-, Ø4.1-, and Ø4.8-mm implants was 0.65 ± 0.58 mm, 0.37 ± 0.28 mm, and 0.73 ± 0.37 mm, respectively. The buccal MBR of Ø4.8-mm implants was significantly higher than that of Ø4.1-mm implants (P < .05). The bone-to-implant contact (BIC) percentage at 12 weeks did not differ for any group (P > .05). The correlation coefficients between the ISQ and MBL of the Ø3.3-, Ø4.1-, and Ø4.8-mm implants were -0.84 (P < .01), -0.90 (P < .001), and -0.93 (P < .001), respectively, while that between the ISQ and BIC was 0.15 (P > .05). Conclusions: During the early healing stage, the performance of Ø4.1- and Ø4.8-mm implants in terms of implant stability was better than that of Ø3.3-mm implants. Implant diameter may not influence BIC percentage. RFA can be used to evaluate implant stability and MBL but is not suitable to assess the degree of osseointegration.
期刊介绍:
Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS ISSN (Print): 0882-2786
ISSN (Online): 1942-4434
This highly regarded, often-cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy. It presents pioneering research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, seminal studies, emerging technology, position papers, and consensus studies, as well as the many clinical and therapeutic innovations that ensue as a result of these efforts. The editorial board is composed of recognized opinion leaders in their respective areas of expertise and reflects the international reach of the journal. Under their leadership, JOMI maintains its strong scientific integrity while expanding its influence within the field of implant dentistry. JOMI’s popular regular feature "Thematic Abstract Review" presents a review of abstracts of recently published articles on a specific topical area of interest each issue.