dc.contributorUniversity of Medical Science
dc.contributorUniversity of Padova
dc.contributorARDEC, Ariminum Odontologica
dc.contributorThe University of Hong Kong
dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:28:35Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-05T18:44:59Z
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:28:35Z
dc.date.available2022-10-05T18:44:59Z
dc.date.created2014-05-27T11:28:35Z
dc.date.issued2013-03-01
dc.identifierClinical Oral Implants Research, v. 24, n. 3, p. 270-277, 2013.
dc.identifier0905-7161
dc.identifier1600-0501
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/74717
dc.identifier10.1111/clr.12007
dc.identifierWOS:000314656500005
dc.identifier2-s2.0-84873478311
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3923668
dc.description.abstractAim: To evaluate the influence of implant positioning into extraction sockets on bone formation at buccal alveolar dehiscence defects. Material and Methods: In six Labrador dogs the pulp tissue of the mesial roots of 4P4 was removed and the root canals were filled. Flaps were elevated bilaterally, the premolars hemi-sectioned and the distal roots removed. The implants were placed in contact with either the buccal (test site) or with the lingual (control site) bony wall of the extraction sockets. Healing abutments were affixed and triangular buccal bony dehiscence defects, about 2.7 mm deep and 3.5 mm wide, were then prepared. No regenerative procedures were done and a non-submerged healing was allowed. After 4 months of healing, block sections of the implant sites were obtained for histological processing and peri-implant tissue assessment. Results: After 4 months of healing, the bony crest and the coronal border of osseointegration at the test sites were located 1.71 ± 1.20 and 2.50 ± 1.21 mm apically to the implant shoulder, respectively. At the control sites, the corresponding values were 0.68 ± 0.63 and 1.69 ± 0.99 mm, respectively. The differences between test and control reached statistical significance (P < 0.05). Residual marginal bone defects were found both at the test and control sites. A statistically significant difference between test and control sites was only found at the lingual aspects (depth 2.09 ± 1.01 and 1.01 ± 0.48 mm, respectively). Similar heights of the buccal biological width were observed at both sites (about 5.1 mm). Conclusions: The placement of implants in a lingual position of the extraction sockets allowed a higher degree of bone formation at buccal alveolar dehiscence defects compared with a buccal positioning. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
dc.languageeng
dc.relationClinical Oral Implants Research
dc.relation41736
dc.relation170014
dc.relation39351
dc.relation4.305
dc.relation2,462
dc.relation2,462
dc.rightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAnimal study
dc.subjectBuccal defects
dc.subjectDehiscence defects
dc.subjectExtraction socket
dc.subjectHard tissue
dc.subjectImplant dentistry
dc.subjectOsseointegration
dc.subjectPeri-implant mucosa
dc.subjectSoft tissues
dc.titleHealing of buccal dehiscence defects at implants installed immediately into extraction sockets - an experimental study in dogs
dc.typeArtigo


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución