Premium
The influence of the periodontal biotype on peri‐implant tissues around immediate implants with and without xenografts. Clinical and micro‐computerized tomographic study in small Beagle dogs
Author(s) -
Maia Luciana P.,
Reino Danilo M.,
Muglia Valdir A.,
Souza Sérgio L. S.,
Palioto Daniela B.,
Novaes Arthur B.
Publication year - 2015
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.12298
Subject(s) - buccal administration , dentistry , beagle , medicine , dental alveolus , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , implant , soft tissue , bone resorption , resorption , reduction (mathematics) , orthodontics , surgery , pathology , botany , geometry , mathematics , biology , genus
Objective Soft tissues and buccal bone plate remodeling after immediate implantation in sockets with thin buccal bone, using the flapless approach with or without bone graft into the buccal gap, was compared between sites with thin and normal gingiva. Material and methods Eight dogs had the gingiva of one side of the mandible thinned, the mandibular premolars were extracted without flaps, and 4 implants were installed in each side, positioned 1.5 mm from the buccal bone. The sites were randomly assigned into: TG (test group) = thin gingiva; TG + GM ( TG with grafting material); CG (control group) = normal gingiva; and CG + GM ( CG with grafting material). Buccal bone thickness ( BBT ), thickness of keratinized tissue ( TKT ), alveolar thickness ( AT ), gingival recession ( GR ), and probing depth ( PD ) were clinically evaluated. Within 12 weeks the dogs were sacrificed and the samples were analyzed by micro‐computerized tomography. Results A thin BBT was observed in all the dogs. The presurgical procedures reduced TKT in the test group, with minimal changes of the AT. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups for the clinical parameters and the tomographic analysis showed similar linear and tri‐dimensional bone reduction in all the groups. Conclusion The thickness of the buccal bone was a fundamental factor in buccal bone plate resorption, even with flapless implantation. The decrease in gingival thickness or the addition of a biomaterial in the gap did not influence the results.