We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34 (2019), No. 3     28. May 2019
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34 (2019), No. 3  (28.05.2019)

Page 575-584, doi:10.11607/jomi.7075, PubMed:30807624


Histologic Analyses of Immediate Implant Placement in Infected and Noninfected Sockets: An Experimental Pilot Study in Beagle Dogs
Lee, Jungwon / Kim, Sungtae / Koo, Ki-Tae / Seol, Yang-Jo / Cho, Hyun-Jae / Lee, Yong-Moo
Purpose: To investigate the histologic differences between immediate implants placed in chronically infected sites and noninfected sites in a canine model. The histologic results of immediate implant placement also were evaluated on the basis of healing time and implant surface modification.
Materials and Methods: Chronic endodontic-periodontic combined lesions were induced on the second, third, and fourth premolars of the hemimandible in six dogs, with the contralateral teeth as controls. Implants were immediately placed following the infected and noninfected tooth extractions using implants with a machined surface, sandblasted with alumina and acid-etched surface, and chemically modified sandblasted with alumina and acid-etched with calcium solution surface. After 1 and 3 months, three dogs were euthanized and the bone-to-implant contact, bone area fraction occupied, buccal and lingual first bone-to-implant contact from the implant platform, and buccal and lingual marginal bone loss were calculated.
Results: On histologic evaluation, no inflammation was observed around implants placed in the infected or noninfected sockets. At 1 month, no statistically significant differences were observed between the infected and noninfected sockets in buccal marginal bone loss in the machined implant group (P = .046), lingual first bone-to-implant contact from the implant in the sandblasted with alumina and acid-etched group (P = .046), lingual marginal bone loss in the sandblasted with alumina and acid-etched implant group (P = .028), buccal first bone-to-implant contact from the implant platform in the chemically modified sandblasted with alumina and acid-etched with calcium solution group (P = .028), and lingual first bone-to-implant contact from the implant platform in the chemically modified sandblasted with alumina and acid-etched with calcium solution group (P = .046). At 3 months, no statistically significant differences were observed in parameters between the infected and noninfected sockets for three implant surfaces. Differences between the infected and noninfected sockets were observed between the machined and sandblasted with alumina and acid-etched implant at 1 month (P = .023).
Conclusion: Immediate implant placement in an infected socket did not lead to any differences compared with placement in a noninfected socket when sufficient healing time was provided.

Keywords: bone healing, histomorphometric, immediate placement, periodontitis, surface