Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation No. 4, 2016

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation 76 Volume 2 | Issue 4/2016 H e a l i n g o f s m o o t h v s . r o u g h s u r f a c e i m p l a n t s of thiopental (Cristália Produtos Químicos Far- macêuticos , Campinas, Brazil) and subsequent- ly per fused with a fixative (10% formaldehyde) through the carotid arteries. H i s t o l o g i c a l p r e p a r a t i o n The implants and surrounding tissue were dehy- drated in a series ofgraded ethanolsolutions and subsequentlyembedded in resin (LRWhite, hard grade, London Resin Company, Berkshire, U.K.) andpolymerized.Thecutswereperformedalong the buccolingual plane following the long axis of the implants using a diamond band saw fitted in aprecisionslicingmachine(Microslice2,Ultratec, SantaAna, Calif., U.S.) andthenthinned.The his- tologicalslideswere stainedwith Stevenel’s blue and alizarin red and examined under a standard light microscope for histometric analysis. H i s t o m e t r i c e v a l u a t i o n Under an Eclipse Ci microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan), equipped with a DS-Fi2 (Nikon) digital video camera connected to a computer, the per- centage of mineralized bone-to-implant contact (MBIC%) betweenthe most coronalbone-to-im- plant contact (B) and the apex of the implant (A) was evaluated at 100× magnification. Moreover, the percentages of mineralized bone (MB%) and soft tissue contained in a region included be- tween B and A and between the body of the im- plant to a distance of about 0.6 mm from it were determined. For this aim, a point-counting pro- cedurewas applied6 and a latticewith squares of 50 μm was superposed over the tissue at 200× magnification. D a t a a n a l y s i s Mean values between the two implants includ- ed in each groupwere obtainedforboth MBIC% and MB% in each dog. An n = 6 was obtained. Differences between the two implant surfaces were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Ver- sion No 19.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., U.S.) and applying the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for dependent variables. The level of significance was set at p = 0.05. A correlation between MBIC% and MB% was also calculated for all 24 implants, as well as for the 12 implants of each group. Results After four months of healing, no complications were observed and no implants had been lost.All of the implants were available for histological analysis. Data illustrating the outcomes at the marginalsoftandhardtissuearoundtheimplants were previously described.5 Table 1 reports the mean values and standard deviations, as well as medians and 25th and 75th percentiles. Inthetext, only mean values ± standard deviations are re- ported. Figs. 1a–e Clinical view of the surgical procedures. (a) Premium and (b) Platform Premium implants during placement. (c) Implants placed in the alveolar bone crest. (d) Abutments attached at the top of the implants. (e) Flaps adapted around the abutment–implant unit to allow nonsubmerged healing. a d b c e Figs. 1a – c Figs. 1d & e

Pages Overview