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 15 (2000), No. 6     15. Dec. 2000
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15 (2000), No. 6  (15.12.2000)

Page 785-791


Histomorphometric Analysis of Implant Anchorage for 3 Types of Dental Implants Following 6 Months of Healing in Baboon Jaws
Carr, Alan B. / Gerard, David A. / Larsen, Peter E.
In an effort to better understand the supporting anatomy for unloaded endosseous dental implants, this study focused on the histomorphometric analysis of 3 different types of implants placed into non-human primate jaws and allowed to heal for 6 months. This report describes data from 24 screw-type dental implants placed in edentulated (2 months healing time) posterior arches of 4 adult female baboons. Three different implants were placed and allowed to heal for 6 months prior to processing for evaluation: commercially pure titanium (n = 8), titanium alloy (n = 8), and titanium plasma-sprayed (n = 8). Circumferential bone-implant interface sampling from 6 regions along the entire length of each implant was obtained for evaluation of percent bone-implant contact (%BIC) and percent bone area (%BA), within 3 mm of the implant. Data were collected (reliability of 1.6% for both parameters) and analyzed by an observer blinded to implant material using IMAGE analysis software for differences between jaws, implant biomaterials, and jaw/biomaterial (analysis of variance, pairwise comparison using least squares method with Bonferroni adjustment). The results indicated that the overall mean %BIC was 55.8 and mean %BA was 48.1. Maxillary and mandibular differences for both parameters were statistically significantly different: %BIC in maxilla 50.8, in mandible 60.8; %BA in maxilla 43.6, in mandible 52.6 (both significant at the P < .05 level). The biomaterial analyses revealed no significant differences between the different implants for %BIC or %BA. The trend observed--that mandibular values were greater than maxillary values for the overall jaw comparisons--was found to be consistent at the jaw/biomaterial level, although the small sample size limited statistical power. These data, along with data from a previous 3-month study, provide insight into baseline supporting anatomy for dental implants.

Keywords: animal study, biomaterials, bone, dental implants, histomorphometry