Premium
Probing depth at implants and teeth
Author(s) -
Ericsson Ingvar,
Lindhe Jan
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1993.tb00706.x
Subject(s) - premolar , dentistry , osseointegration , abutment , molar , implant , medicine , periodontium , soft tissue , orthodontics , beagle , dentition , surgery , civil engineering , engineering
The aim of the present investigation was to assess the resistance offered by the gingiva at teeth and the peri‐implant mucosa at osseointegrated titanium implants to mechanical probing. 5 beagle dogs were used in the experiment. The 2nd and 3rd premolars and the 1st molars of the right and left mandibular dentition were extracted. 2 titanium implants were installed in the edentulous right and left premolar‐ and motar‐regions. Abutment connection was performed 3 months later. The remaining premolar in the left jaw (P 4 ) was exposed to “experimental periodomitis” during a 4–momh period and, thus, the 4th premolar in the right jaw ( 4 P) was representing healthy periodontium. The inflamed soft tissues at P 4 were treated using a flap procedure. Following 2 weeks of healing, the main experiment was started, i.e., day 0. During the subsequent 360 days, the teeth and abutment parts of the implants were regularly exposed to plaque control (3 x /week). Radiographs of 4 P‐, P 4 ‐ and the implant‐regions were obtained on days 0 and 360. Mobility measurements were performed on days 0 and 360. Biopsies of the experimental teeth and the implants were sampled at the end of the study, The results of the present experiment demonstrated that differences in terms of tissue composition, organization and attachment between the gingiva and the root surface on one hand and between the peri‐implant mocusa and the ‐implant surface on the other, make the conditions for probing depth measurements at teeth and implants different. It was observed that the resistance offered by the gingiva to probing was greater than that offered by the peri‐implant mucosa, and consequently the probe penetration became more advanced at implants than at teeth.