IADR Abstract Archives
Osseointegration in the Absence of Primary Stability: Over-Preparation in-Vivo Model
Objectives: The effect of osteotomy over-preparation (OP), and thus lack of primary stability, on implant osseointegration, bone apposition and bone volume maintenance were investigated by comparing placement of dental implants (BL ø3.3mm NC, 8mm SLA Roxolid, BL ø3.3mm NC, 8mm SLActive TiZr Institut Straumann AG, Switzerland) with either a standard osteotomy preparation (NP) or an over-prepared osteotomy where the final osteotomy drill was larger in diameter than the implant placed.
Methods: Osseointegration was analysed histologically and histomorphometrically, in a Göttingen mini-pig model at 2 week(2W) and 8 week(8W) timepoints, for two preparation techniques: a NP and an OP to an osteotomy of 2.8mm and 3.5mm in diameter, respectively. The primary outcome was implant survival. Secondary outcomes included: first-bone-to-implant-contact(fBIC), total-bone-to-implant contact(tBIC) coronal-bone-to-implant contact(cBIC), apical-bone-to-implant contact(aBIC), bone-area-to-total-area(BATA).
A linear mixed-effect model was used to assess the effect of preparation on the outcome of interest. Preparation, jaw side, tooth position and implant surface, together with the interaction between preparation and each of the other covariates, were included as fixed effects with the pig as a random effect, and a significance level of 0.05 was used for all hypothesis tests. Data were analysed by Stata(StataCorp LLC.).
Results: The average ISQ at insertion for NP and OP groups were 69.3 and 11.9, respectively, with no implant failures in either group. No difference was observed between the groups for tBIC (2W p=0.305, 8W p=0.423)and aBIC (2W p=0.858, 8W p=0.716). At 2W and 8W the OP group demonstrated significantly higher cBIC (2W-OP Coefficient: 41.29%, 95%CI=21.25-61.33,p<0.001)(8W-OP Coefficient 42.86%, 95%CI=13.037-72.676,p=0.005) and BATA(2W-OP Coefficient 35.3%, 95%CI=18.1-52.5,p<0.001)(8W-OP Coefficient: 28.5%, 95%CI=20.1-55.1,p=0.035).
Conclusions: At 2 and 8 weeks OP resulted in significantly more coronal bone apposition and maintenance as measured by fBIC, cBIC and BATA. There was no evidence of difference in osseointegration between preparation techniques for aBIC or tBIC.
Methods: Osseointegration was analysed histologically and histomorphometrically, in a Göttingen mini-pig model at 2 week(2W) and 8 week(8W) timepoints, for two preparation techniques: a NP and an OP to an osteotomy of 2.8mm and 3.5mm in diameter, respectively. The primary outcome was implant survival. Secondary outcomes included: first-bone-to-implant-contact(fBIC), total-bone-to-implant contact(tBIC) coronal-bone-to-implant contact(cBIC), apical-bone-to-implant contact(aBIC), bone-area-to-total-area(BATA).
A linear mixed-effect model was used to assess the effect of preparation on the outcome of interest. Preparation, jaw side, tooth position and implant surface, together with the interaction between preparation and each of the other covariates, were included as fixed effects with the pig as a random effect, and a significance level of 0.05 was used for all hypothesis tests. Data were analysed by Stata(StataCorp LLC.).
Results: The average ISQ at insertion for NP and OP groups were 69.3 and 11.9, respectively, with no implant failures in either group. No difference was observed between the groups for tBIC (2W p=0.305, 8W p=0.423)and aBIC (2W p=0.858, 8W p=0.716). At 2W and 8W the OP group demonstrated significantly higher cBIC (2W-OP Coefficient: 41.29%, 95%CI=21.25-61.33,p<0.001)(8W-OP Coefficient 42.86%, 95%CI=13.037-72.676,p=0.005) and BATA(2W-OP Coefficient 35.3%, 95%CI=18.1-52.5,p<0.001)(8W-OP Coefficient: 28.5%, 95%CI=20.1-55.1,p=0.035).
Conclusions: At 2 and 8 weeks OP resulted in significantly more coronal bone apposition and maintenance as measured by fBIC, cBIC and BATA. There was no evidence of difference in osseointegration between preparation techniques for aBIC or tBIC.