Histomorphologic and histomorphometric evaluation of various endosseous implant healing chamber configurations at early implantation times: a study in dogs

  1. Charles Marin1,
  2. Rodrigo Granato1,
  3. Marcelo Suzuki2,
  4. Jose N. Gil1,
  5. Malvin N. Janal3,
  6. Paulo G. Coelho4

Article first published online: 22 JAN 2010

DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01853.x

Issue

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Volume 21, Issue 6, pages 577–583, June 2010

Additional Information

How to Cite

Marin, C., Granato, R., Suzuki, M., Gil, J. N., Janal, M. N. and Coelho, P. G. (2010), Histomorphologic and histomorphometric evaluation of various endosseous implant healing chamber configurations at early implantation times: a study in dogs. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 21: 577–583. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01853.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

  2. 2

    Department of Prosthodontics, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

  3. 3

    Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, New York University, New York, NY, USA

  4. 4

    Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University, New York, NY, USA

*Correspondence to: Paulo G. Coelho Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University, New York, NY, USA Tel.:/Fax: +646 812 1893 e-mail: pgcoelho@nyu.edu

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 11 MAY 2010
  2. Article first published online: 22 JAN 2010
  3. Date: Accepted 5 September 2009

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (2079K)

Keywords:

  • bone healing;
  • dental implant;
  • dogs;
  • implant design

Abstract

Aim: The objective of this study was to evaluate the early healing of endosseous implants presenting various healing chamber configurations in a beagle dog mandible model.

Methods: The four premolars of 12 beagle dogs were extracted and allowed to heal for a period of 8 weeks. Implants allowing six different healing chamber configurations were placed in each dog (three per side, six configurations per dog). The animals were sacrificed after 3 and 5 weeks in vivo (n=6 per time in vivo), and the implants were non-decalcified processed to slides of ∼30 μm thickness. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupied (BAFO) within the healing chamber were quantified. Statistical analysis was performed by a GLM ANOVA model at 5% significance level.

Results: Osseointegration and healing with woven bone filling throughout all healing chambers was observed. Replacement of woven bone by lamellar bone showing primary osteonic structures was observed at 5 weeks. BIC was significantly affected by healing chamber configuration (P<0.001) and was not affected by time in vivo (P>0.42) at 3 and 5 weeks in vivo. BAFO was not affected by healing chamber configuration (P>0.14) however significantly increased over implantation time (P<0.001).

Conclusion: Regardless of healing chamber design and dimensions considered, healing allowed the devices osseointegration. However, healing chamber configuration significantly affected osseointegration measurable parameters such as BIC.

To cite this article: Marin C, Granato R, Suzuki M, Gil JN, Janal, MN Coelho PG. Histomorhpologic and histomorphometric evaluation of various endosseous implant healing chamber configurations at early implantation times: a study in dogs. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 577–583. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01853.x

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (2079K)