Get access
Clinical Oral Implants Research

Effect of lateral static load on immediately restored implants: histologic and radiographic evaluation in dogs

Authors

  • Daniel S. Ferrari,

    1. Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Dental Research Division, University of Guarulhos, Guarulhos, Brazil
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Adriano Piattelli,

    1. Department of Oral Medicine and Pathology, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Giovanna Iezzi,

    1. Department of Oral Medicine and Pathology, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Marcelo Faveri,

    1. Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Dental Research Division, University of Guarulhos, Guarulhos, Brazil
    Search for more papers by this author
  • José A. Rodrigues,

    1. Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Dental Research Division, University of Guarulhos, Guarulhos, Brazil
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jamil A. Shibli

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Dental Research Division, University of Guarulhos, Guarulhos, Brazil
    • Corresponding author:

      Prof. Jamil Awad Shibli

      Universidade Guarulhos (UnG)

      Praça Tereza Cristina, 01 – Centro

      07023-070 Guarulhos, SP – Brazil

      Tel.: +55 11 2464 1674

      Fax: +55 11 2087 3594

      e-mail: jashibli@yahoo.com

    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of lateral static load in immediately restored implants in the canine mandible.

Material and methods

In 7 mongrel dogs, all premolars and the first molars were extracted bilaterally in the mandible. Two months after the extractions, 6 implants with sandblasted acid-etched surfaces were placed in each animal, 3 on each side. Randomly, two implants per side were immediately restored with an orthodontic expansion device that promoted lateral excessive static load (test group) or load (control) while the third implant of each side, remained submerged (unloaded group). These loaded devices were cleaned daily with chlorhexidine 0.12%, during the 4 months of study, when the animals were sacrificed and biopsies removed for histometric study. Intra-oral periapicals were made using positioners at the beginning and at the end of the study.

Results

Five implants from test group were lost in 3 dogs. Radiographically, there was a marginal bone loss of 3.68 ± 0.74 mm for the test group, 1.63 ± 0.2 mm for the control group and 0.45 ± 0.5 mm for the unloaded group. Histometrically, the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC%) was 35.52 ± 7.32%, for the test group, 63.16 ± 5.16% for the control group and 42.33 ± 2.14% for the unloaded group.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the excessive lateral static load negatively affected the behavior of peri-implant bone around immediate restored implants.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary