Premium
Influence of the Interimplant Distance on Crestal Bone Resorption and Bone Density: A Histomorphometric Study in Dogs
Author(s) -
Papalexiou Vula,
Novaes Arthur B.,
Ribeiro Ricardo F.,
Muglia Valdir,
Oliveira Rafael R.
Publication year - 2006
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.2006.050172
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , bone resorption , alveolar crest , resorption , dental alveolus , soft tissue , bone density , orthodontics , osteoporosis , surgery
Background: The position of gingival soft tissues depends on the position and health of the underlying alveolar bone. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different interimplant distances on crestal bone resorption after prosthetic restoration with a 5‐mm distance between the contact point and the bone crest. Methods: The mandibular bilateral premolars of six dogs were extracted and, after 12 weeks, each dog received eight implants, totaling 48 implants in the experiment. Two pairs, one in each hemiarch, were separated by 2 mm (group 1) and two by 3 mm (group 2). After 12 weeks, the implants received temporary acrylic prostheses. After 4 more weeks, metallic crowns substituted the temporary prostheses. After 4 more weeks, the animals were sacrificed, and their hemimandibles were removed, dissected, and processed. Results: For groups 1 and 2, respectively, the mean of interimplant bone resorption (IIBR) analyzed histologically was 2.03 and 1.98 mm ( P ≥0.05), and the mean of the distal extension bone resorption was 2.04 and 1.92 mm for groups 1 and 2, respectively ( P ≥0.05). The crestal bone resorption between the implants was 0.13 mm ( P ≥0.05) for both groups. The mean of IIBD for groups 1 and 2 was 79% and 80%, respectively. When the IIBD was compared to the distal extension bone density for group 1 (79% and 64%) and group 2 (80% and 62%), statistically significant differences were obtained for both groups ( P ≤0.05). Conclusions: The distances of 2 and 3 mm between implants do not result in statistically significant differences in crestal bone resorption around implant surfaces in dogs. The bone density is enhanced when loading is present at the interimplant area.