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



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 3     15. May 2010
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 3  (15.05.2010)

Page 540-547, PubMed:20556253

Influence of Microgap Location and Configuration on Peri-implant Bone Morphology in Nonsubmerged Implants: An Experimental Study in Dogs
Weng, Dietmar / Nagata, Maria José Hitomi / Bell, Matthias / De Melo, Luiz Gustavo Nascimento / Bosco, Alvaro Francisco
Purpose: It is unknown whether different microgap configurations can cause different peri-implant bone reactions. Therefore, this study sought to compare the peri-implant bone morphologies of two implant systems with different implant-abutment connections.
Materials and Methods: Three months after mandibular tooth extractions in six mongrel dogs, two oxidized screw implants with an external-hex connection were inserted (hexed group) on one side, whereas on the contralateral side two grit-blasted screw implants with an internal Morse-taper connection (Morse group) were placed. On each side, one implant was inserted level with the bone (equicrestal) and the second implant was inserted 1.5 mm below the bony crest (subcrestal). Healing abutments were inserted immediately after implant placement. Three months later, the peri-implant bone levels, the first bone-to-implant contact points, and the width and steepness of the peri-implant bone defects were evaluated histometrically.
Results: All 24 implants osseointegrated clinically and histologically. No statistically significant differences between the hexed group and Morse group were detected for either the vertical position for peri-implant bone levels (Morse equicrestal -0.16 mm, hexed equicrestal -0.22 mm, Morse subcrestal 1.50 mm, hexed subcrestal 0.94 mm) or for the first bone-to-implant contact points (Morse equicrestal -2.08 mm, hexed equicrestal -0.98 mm, Morse subcrestal -1.26 mm, hexed subcrestal -0.76 mm). For the parameters width (Morse equicrestal -0.15 mm, hexed equicrestal -0.59 mm, Morse subcrestal 0.28 mm, hexed subcrestal -0.70 mm) and steepness (Morse equicrestal 25.27 degree, hexed equicrestal 57.21 degree, Morse subcrestal 15.35 degree, hexed subcrestal 37.97 degree) of the peri-implant defect, highly significant differences were noted between the Morse group and the hexed group.
Conclusion: Within the limits of this experiment, it can be concluded that different microgap configurations influence the size and shape of the peri-implant bone defect in nonsubmerged implants placed both at the crest and subcrestally.

Keywords: bone morphology, equicrestal placement, histometric study, microgap, subcrestal placement