Premium
Influence of implant diameter on surrounding bone
Author(s) -
Brink Jeff,
Meraw Stephen J.,
Sarment David P.
Publication year - 2007
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/j.1600-0501.2007.01283.x
Subject(s) - osseointegration , implant , dentistry , bone density , bone remodeling , medicine , implant failure , orthodontics , osteoporosis , surgery
Objectives: Implant osseointegration is dependent upon various factors, such as bone quality and type of implant surface. It is also subject to adaptation in response to changes in bone metabolism or transmission of masticatory forces. Understanding of long‐term physiologic adjustment is critical to prevention of potential loss of osseointegration, especially because excessive occlusal forces lead to failure. To address this issue, wide‐diameter implants were introduced in part with the hope that greater total implant surface would offer mechanical resistance. Yet, there is little evidence that variation in diameter translates into a different bone response in the implant vicinity. Therefore, this study aimed at comparing the impact of implant diameter on surrounding bone. Material and methods: Twenty standard (3.75 mm) and 20 wide (5 mm) implants were placed using an animal model. Histomorphometry was performed to establish initial bone density (IBD), bone to implant contact (BIC) and adjacent bone density (ABD). Results: BIC was 71% and 73%, whereas ABD was 65% and 52%, for standard and wide implants, respectively. These differences were not statistically different ( P >0.05). Correlation with IBD was then investigated. BIC was not correlated with IBD. ABD was not correlated to IBD for standard implants ( r 2 =0.126), but it was correlated with wide implants ( r 2 =0.82). In addition, a 1 : 1 ratio between IBD and ABD was found for wide implants. It can be concluded, within the limits of this study, that ABD may be influenced by implant diameter, perhaps due to differences in force dissipation.