Collagen membranes at immediate implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs

Aim: To evaluate the influence of resorbable membranes on hard tissue alterations and osseointegration at implants placed into extraction sockets in a dog model. Material and methods: In the mandibular premolar region, implants were installed immediately into the extraction sockets of six Labrador dogs. Collagen‐resorbable membranes were placed at the test sites, while the control sites were left uncovered. Implants were intended to heal in a submerged mode. After 4 months of healing, the animals were sacrificed, and ground sections were obtained for histomorphometric evaluation. Results: After 4 months of healing, a control implant was not integrated (n=5). Both at the test and at the control sites, bone resorption occurred. While the most coronal bone‐to‐implant contact was similar between the test and the control sites, the alveolar bone crest outline was maintained to a higher degree at the buccal aspect of the test sites (loss: 1.7 mm) compared with the control sites (loss: 2.2 mm). Conclusions: The use of collagen‐resorbable membranes at implants immediately placed into extraction sockets contributed to a partial (23%) preservation of the buccal outline of the alveolar process. To cite this article:
Caneva M, Botticelli D, Salata LA, Souza SLS, Carvalho Cardoso L, Lang NP. Collagen membranes at immediate implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 891–897.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01946.x     

Flap vs. “flapless” surgical approach at immediate implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs

Aim: To compare the remodeling of the alveolar process at implants installed immediately into extraction sockets by applying a flap or a “flapless” surgical approach in a dog model. Material and methods: Implants were installed immediately into the distal alveoli of the second mandibular premolars of six Labrador dogs. In one side of the mandible, a full‐thickness mucoperiosteal flap was elevated (control site), while contra‐laterally, the mucosa was gently dislocated, but not elevated (test site) to disclose the alveolar crest. After 4 months of healing, the animals were sacrificed, ground sections were obtained and a histomorphometric analysis was performed. Results: After 4 months of healing, all implants were integrated (n=6). Both at the test and at the control sites, bone resorption occurred with similar outcomes. The buccal bony crest resorption was 1.7 and 1.5 mm at the control and the test sites, respectively. Conclusions: “Flapless” implant placement into extraction sockets did not result in the prevention of alveolar bone resorption and did not affect the dimensional changes of the alveolar process following tooth extraction when compared with the usual placement of implants raising mucoperiosteal flaps. To cite this article:
Caneva M, Botticelli D, Salata LA, Souza SLS, Bressan E, Lang NP. Flap vs. “flapless” surgical approach at immediate implants: a histomorphometric study in dogs.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 1314–1319.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01959.x     

Deproteinized bovine bone mineral in marginal defects at implants installed immediately into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs

Aim: To evaluate the influence of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) particles concomitant with the placement of a collagen membrane on alveolar ridge preservation and on osseointegration of implants placed into alveolar sockets immediately after tooth extraction. Material and methods: The pulp tissue of the mesial roots of ₃P₃ was removed in six Labrador dogs and the root canals were filled. Flaps were elevated in the right side of the mandible, and the buccal and lingual alveolar bony plates were exposed. The third premolar was hemi‐sectioned and the distal root was removed. A recipient site was prepared and an implant was placed lingually. After implant installation, defects of about 0.6 mm wide and 3.1 mm depth resulted at the buccal aspects of the implant, both at the test and at the control sites. The same surgical procedures and measurements were performed on the left side of the mandible. However, DBBM particles with a size of 0.25–1 mm were placed into the remaining defect concomitant with the placement of a collagen membrane. Results: All implants were integrated into mature bone. No residual DBBM particles were detected at the test sites after 4 months of healing. Both the test and the control sites showed buccal alveolar bone resorption, 1.8±1.1 and 2.1±1 mm, respectively. The most coronal bone‐to‐implant contact at the buccal aspect was 2±1.1 an 2.8±1.3 mm, at the test and the control sites, respectively. This difference in the distance was statistically significant. Conclusion: The application of DBBM concomitant with a collagen membrane to fill the marginal defects around implants placed into the alveolus immediately after tooth extraction contributed to improved bone regeneration in the defects. However, with regard to buccal bony crest preservation, a limited contribution of DBBM particles was achieved. To cite this article:
Caneva M, Botticelli D, Pantani F, Baffone GM, Rangel IG Jr, Lang NP. Deproteinized bovine bone mineral in marginal defects at implants installed immediately into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 23 , 2012; 106–112.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2011.02202.x     

Influence of implant positioning in extraction sockets on osseointegration: histomorphometric analyses in dogs

Aim: To evaluate the influence of implant positioning into extraction sockets on osseointegration. Material and methods: Implants were installed immediately into extraction sockets in the mandibles of six Labrador dogs. In the control sites, the implants were positioned in the center of the alveolus, while in the test sites, the implants were positioned 0.8 mm deeper and more lingually. After 4 months of healing, the resorptive patterns of the alveolar crest were evaluated histomorphometrically. Results: All implants were integrated in mineralized bone, mainly composed of mature lamellar bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at the control as well as at the test sites. After 4 months of healing, at the buccal aspects of the control and test sites, the location of the implant rough/smooth limit to the alveolar crest was 2±0.9 mm and 0.6±0.9 mm, respectively (P<0.05). At the lingual aspect, the bony crest was located 0.4 mm apically and 0.2 mm coronally to the implant rough/smooth limit at the control and test sites, respectively (NS). Conclusions: From a clinical point of view, implants installed into extraction sockets should be positioned approximately 1 mm deeper than the level of the buccal alveolar crest and in a lingual position in relation to the center of the alveolus in order to reduce or eliminate the exposure above the alveolar crest of the endosseous (rough) portion of the implant. To cite this article:
Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, Baffone G, Lang NP, Botticelli D. Influence of implant positioning in extraction sockets on osseointegration: histomorphometric analyses in dogs.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 43–49.     

Hard tissue formation adjacent to implants of various size and configuration immediately placed into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of implant size and configuration on osseointegration in implants immediately placed into extraction sockets. Material and methods: Implants were installed immediately into extraction sockets in the mandibles of six Labrador dogs. In the control sites, cylindrical transmucosal implants (3.3 mm diameter) were installed, while in the test sites, larger and conical (root formed, 5 mm diameter) implants were installed. After 4 months of healing, the resorptive patterns of the alveolar crest were evaluated histomorphometrically. Results: With one exception, all implants were integrated in mineralized bone, mainly composed of mature lamellar bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at the control as well as at the test implants. This resorption was more pronounced at the buccal aspects and significantly greater at the test (2.7±0.4 mm) than at the control implants (1.5±0.6 mm). However, the control implants were associated with residual defects that were deeper at the lingual than at the buccal aspects, while these defects were virtually absent at test implants. Conclusions: The installment of root formed wide implants immediately into extraction sockets will not prevent the resorption of the alveolar crest. In contrast, this resorption is more marked both at the buccal and lingual aspects of root formed wide than at standard cylindrical implants. To cite this article:
Caneva M, Salata LA, de Souza SS, Bressan E, Botticelli D, Lang NP. Hard tissue formation adjacent to implants of various size and configuration immediately placed into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 885–895.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01931.x     

Bone regeneration at implants placed into extraction sockets of maxillary incisors in dogs

Aim: To compare the influence of autologous or deproteinized bovine bone mineral as grafting material on healing of buccal dehiscence defects at implants installed immediately into the maxillary second incisor extraction socket in dogs. Material and methods: In the maxillary second incisor sockets of 12 Labrador dogs, implants were installed immediately following tooth extraction. A standardized buccal defect was created and autologous bone particles or deproteinized bovine bone mineral were used to fill the defects. A collagen membrane was placed to cover the graft material, and the flaps were sutured to fully submerge the experimental areas. Six animals were sacrificed after 2 months, and six after 4 months of healing. Ground sections were obtained for histological evaluation. Results: After 2 months of healing, all implants were osseointegrated. All buccal dehiscence defects were completely filled after 2 months irrespective of the augmentation material (autologous bone or Bio‐Oss^®) applied. Bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) on the denuded implant surfaces was within a normal range of 30–40%. However, the newly formed tissue at 2 months was partially resorbed (>50% of the area measurements) after 4 months. Conclusions: Applying either autologous bone or deproteinized bovine bone mineral to dehiscences at implants installed immediately into extraction sockets resulted in high degree of regeneration of the defects with satisfactory BIC on the denuded implant surface. To cite this article:
De Santis E, Botticelli D, Pantani F, Pereira FP, Beolchini M, Lang NP. Bone regeneration at implants placed into extraction sockets of maxillary incisors in dogs.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22 , 2011; 430–437.     

Influence of lateral pressure to the implant bed on osseointegration: an experimental study in dogs

Aim: To study osseointegration and bone‐level changes at implants installed using either a standard or a reduced diameter bur for implant bed preparation. Material and methods: In six Labrador dogs, the first and second premolars were extracted bilaterally. Subsequently, mesial roots of the first molars were endodontically treated and distal roots, including the corresponding part of the crown, were extracted. After 3 months of healing, flaps were elevated and recipient sites were prepared in all experimental sites. The control site was prepared using a standard procedure, while the test site was prepared using a drill with a 0.2 mm reduced diameter than the standard one used in the contra‐lateral side. After 4 months of healing, the animals were euthanized and biopsies were obtained for histological processing and evaluation. Results: With the exception of one implant that was lost, all implants were integrated in mineralized bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at control as well as at test sites (buccal aspect ～1 mm). The most coronal contact of bone‐to‐implant was located between 1.2 and 1.6 mm at the test and between 1.3 and 1.7 mm at the control sites. Bone‐to‐implant contact percentage was between 49% and 67%. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the outcome variables. Conclusions: After 4 months of healing, lateral pressure to the implant bed as reflected by higher insertion torques (36 vs. 15 N cm in the premolar and 19 vs. 7 N cm in the molar regions) did not affect the bone‐to‐implant contact. To cite this article:
Pantani F, Botticelli D, Garcia IR Jr., Salata LA, Borges GJ, Lang NP. Influence of lateral pressure to the implant bed on osseointegration: an experimental study in dogs.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 1264–1270.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01941.x