Premium
Histological, radiological and histomorphometric evaluation of immediate vs. non‐immediate loading of a zirconia implant with surface treatment in a dog model
Author(s) -
CalvoGuirado Jose L.,
AguilarSalvatierra Antonio,
GomezMoreno Gerardo,
Guardia Javier,
DelgadoRuiz Rafael A.,
MateSanchez de Val Jose Eduardo
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12145
Subject(s) - osseointegration , implant , dentistry , medicine , cubic zirconia , molar , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , initial stability , orthodontics , materials science , surgery , ceramic , botany , composite material , biology , genus
Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to assess the performance of zirconia implants under immediate loading compared with delayed loading in dogs over 30–90 days. Materials and Methods Tooth extractions were made for the subsequent placement of dental implants at premolars P2, P3, P4 and molars M1 bilaterally in the dog mandible. Forty eight zirconia implants, 4 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length, were inserted, whose neck and body surfaces had been treated with femtosecond laser texturing; 24 implants were loaded immediately and 24 remained unloaded during the osseointegration period. Final radiographs were taken recording stability values before sacrifice at 30 or 90 days when sample removal for histological and histomorphometric analysis was performed. Bone‐to‐implant contact, crestal bone loss and implant stability were evaluated at these two study times. Results Bone‐to‐implant contact values after 30 days were 38.9% for immediately loaded implants and 32% for non‐loaded implants. After 90 days, values increased to 65% for immediately loaded and 57.6% for non‐loaded implants. After 30 days, there was more crestal bone lost in the non‐loaded group (0.58 ± 0.28 mm) compared with the immediately loaded group (0.5 ± 0.3 mm). After 90 days, there was improved stability in both groups, but was lower in the immediately loaded group (0.5 ± 0.23 mm) compared with the non‐loaded group (0.56 ± 0.28 mm). Initial implant stability values were −3.5 PTV at the moment of implant placement. Stability values after the first 30 days were −4 for immediately loaded implants and −3 for non‐loaded. At 90 days, non‐loaded implants showed −4.9, whereas immediately loaded showed −7.1. Conclusions For the different parameters studied, zirconia implants treated with femtosecond laser and subjected to immediate loading showed better results compared with non‐loaded implants in terms of BIC , crestal bone loss and implant stability.