4.0 Article

INFLUENCE OF INTERIMPLANT DISTANCES AND PLACEMENT DEPTH ON PAPILLA FORMATION AND CRESTAL RESORPTION: A CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC STUDY IN DOGS

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 18-27

Publisher

ALLEN PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336-35.1.18

Keywords

dental implants; interimplant distance; crestal bone levels; gingival papilla; bone resorption; contact point

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Among the factors that contribute to the papilla formation and crestal bone preservation between contiguous implants, this animal study clinically and radiographically evaluated the interimplant distances (IDs) of 2 and 3 mm and the placement depths of Morse cone connection implants restored with platform switch. Bilateral mandibular premolars of 6 dogs were extracted, and after 12 weeks, the implants were placed. Four experimental groups were constituted: subcrestally with ID of 2 mm (2 SCL) and 3 mm (3 SCL) and crestally with ID of 2 mm (2 CL) and 3 mm (3 CL). Metallic crowns were immediately installed with a distance of 3 mm between the contact point and the bone crest. Eight weeks later, clinical measurements were performed to evaluate papilla formation, and radiographic images were taken to analyze the crestal bone remodeling. The subcrestal groups achieved better levels of papillae formation when compared with the crestal groups, with a significant difference between the 3 SCL and 3 CL groups (P = .026). Radiographically, the crestal bone preservation was also better in the subcrestal groups, with statistically significant differences between the 2SCL and 2CL groups (P = .002) and between the 3SCL and 3CL groups (P = .008). With the present conditions, it could be concluded that subcrestal implant placement had a positive impact on papilla formation and crestal bone preservation, which could favor the esthetic of anterior regions. However, the IDs of 2 and 3 mm did not show significantly different results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available