Premium
Implants in Regenerated Bone in a Primate Model
Author(s) -
Fritz M.E.,
Jeffcoat M.K.,
Reddy M.,
Koth D.,
Braswell L.D.,
Malmquist J.,
Lemons J.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2001.72.6.703
Subject(s) - dentistry , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , implant , prosthesis , medicine , abutment , orthodontics , materials science , biology , surgery , botany , civil engineering , engineering , genus
Background: Earlier publications from our laboratory described the use of guided bone regeneration to fill large bone voids in the mandible created through en bloc resection in primates. The present report describes placement of implants into the regenerated bone with subsequent prostheses construction and loading. Methods: Lesions were created in the mandibles of 9 monkeys in a standardized mandibular defect of 8 × 19 mm. Reinforced expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes were placed in the animals and held in place with mini screws and sutures for anywhere from 1 to 12 months. No material was added to the defect. In each animal a root‐form implant was placed 12 mm distal to the abutment teeth into the regenerated bone and was loaded with a prosthesis for 12 months. These implants were compared to original implants placed in the same monkeys years earlier in the same location in non‐regenerated bone. Digital radiology and histomorphometry are described. Results: The results show that root‐form implants placed in regenerated bone show the same radiological and histomorphometric characteristics as in normal bone when loaded. In addition, the percentage of bone contact with implants seen in regenerated bone versus non‐regenerated bone is the same when both are loaded (65 ± 13% SD in regenerated bone versus 59 ± 15% SD in non‐regenerated bone). Conclusions: In a primate model root‐form implants placed in regenerated bone and prosthetically loaded show no difference when compared to root‐form implants placed in non‐regenerated bone and prosthetically loaded. J Periodontol 2001;72:703‐708.