Premium
B one C eramic® at Implants Installed Immediately into Extraction Sockets in the Molar Region: An Experimental Study in Dogs
Author(s) -
Pereira Flávia Priscila,
HochuliVieira Eduardo,
Maté Sánchez de Val José E.,
De Santis Enzo,
Salata Luiz Antonio,
Botticelli Daniele
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12312
Subject(s) - buccal administration , molar , osseointegration , dentistry , implant , extraction (chemistry) , coronal plane , medicine , materials science , biomedical engineering , chemistry , surgery , anatomy , chromatography
Purpose The aim of this paper was to study the healing of 1–1.4 mm wide buccal defects at implants placed immediately into extraction sockets ( IPIES ) filled with a mixture of synthetic hydroxyapatite (HA) 60% and beta‐tricalciumphosphate (TCP) 40% or left with the clot alone and both covered with collagen membranes. Material and Methods Eight Labrador dogs were used and implants were placed immediately into the extraction sockets of the first molar bilaterally. A mixture of synthetic HA 60% and beta‐ TCP 40% at the test or the clot alone at the control sites were used to fill the defects. All surgical sites were subsequently covered by a resorbable collagen membrane and a non‐submerged healing was allowed. After 4 months, the animals were euthanized, biopsies harvested and processed for histomorphometric analysis. Results At the time of installation, residual buccal defects occurred that were 1.1 mm and 1.4 mm wide and 3 mm and 4 mm deep at the control and test sites, respectively. After 4 months of healing, the top of the bony crest and the coronal level of osseointegration were located respectively at 0.1 ± 1.8 mm and 1.5 ± 1.8 mm at the test, and 0.6 ± 1.6 mm and 1.2 ± 0.7 mm at the control sites apically to the implant shoulder. Bone‐to‐implant contact at the buccal aspect was 34.9 ± 25.9% and 36.4 ± 17.3% at the test and control sites, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between test and control sites for any of the variables analyzed at the buccal aspects. Conclusions The use of a mixture of synthetic HA 60% and beta‐ TCP 40% to fill residual buccal defects 1–1.4 mm wide at IPIES did not improve significantly the results of healing.