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
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.