Histomorphometric analysis of implant Anchorage for 3 types of dental implants following 6 months of healing in baboon jaws

Citation
Ab. Carr et al., Histomorphometric analysis of implant Anchorage for 3 types of dental implants following 6 months of healing in baboon jaws, INT J O M I, 15(6), 2000, pp. 785-791
Citations number
26
Categorie Soggetti
Dentistry/Oral Surgery & Medicine
Journal title
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS
ISSN journal
08822786 → ACNP
Volume
15
Issue
6
Year of publication
2000
Pages
785 - 791
Database
ISI
SICI code
0882-2786(200011/12)15:6<785:HAOIAF>2.0.ZU;2-Y
Abstract
In an effort to better understand the supporting anatomy for unloaded endos seous dental implants, this study focused on the histomorphometric analysis of 3 different types of implants placed into nonhuman primate jaws and all owed to heal for 6 months. This report describes data from 24 screw-type de ntal implants placed in edentulated (2 months healing time) posterior arche s of 4 adult female baboons. Three different implants were placed and allow ed to heal for 6 months prior to processing for evaluation: commercially pu re titanium (n = 8), titanium alloy (n = 8), and titanium plasma-sprayed (n = 8). Circumferential bone-implant interface sampling from 6 regions along the entire length of each implant was obtained for evaluation of percent b one-implant contact (%BIC) and percent bone area (%BA) within 3 mm of the i mplant Data were collected (reliability of 1.6% for both parameters) and an alyzed by an observer blinded to implant material using IMAGE analysis soft ware for differences between jaws, implant biomaterials, and jaw/biomateria l (analysis of variance, pairwise comparison using least squares method wit h Bonferroni adjustment). The results indicated that the overall mean %BIC was 55.8 and mean %BA was 48.1. Maxillary and mandibular differences for bo th parameters were statistically significantly different: %BIC in maxilla 5 0.8, in mandible 60.8; %BA in maxilla 43,6 in mandible 52.6 (both significa nt at the P < .05 level). The biomaterial analyses revealed no significant differences between the different implants for %BIC or %BA. The trend obser ved-that mandibular values were greater than maxillary values for the overa ll jaw comparisons-was found to be consistent at the jaw/biomaterial level, although the small sample size limited statistical power. These data, alon g with data from a previous 3-month study, provide insight into baseline su pporting anatomy for dental implants.