Buccal Bone Plate Remodeling After Immediate Implant Placement With and Without Synthetic Bone Grafting and Flapless Surgery: Radiographic Study in Dogs

Abstract

Recent studies in animals have shown pronounced resorption of the buccal bone plate after immediate implantation. The use of flapless surgical procedures prior to the installation of immediate implants, as well as the use of synthetic bone graft in the gaps represent viable alternatives to minimize buccal bone resorption and to favor osseointegration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the healing of the buccal bone plate following immediate implantation using the flapless approach, and to compare this process with sites in which a synthetic bone graft was or was not inserted into the gap between the implant and the buccal bone plate. Lower bicuspids from 8 dogs were bilaterally extracted without the use of flaps, and 4 implants were installed in the alveoli in each side of the mandible and were positioned 2.0 mm from the buccal bone plate (gap). Four groups were devised: 2.0-mm subcrestal implants (3.3 × 8 mm) using bone grafts (SCTG), 2.0-mm subcrestal implants without bone grafts (SCCG), equicrestal implants (3.3 × 10 mm) with bone grafts (ECTG), and equicrestal implants without bone grafts (ECCG). One week following the surgical procedures, metallic prostheses were installed, and within 12 weeks the dogs were sacrificed. The blocks containing the individual implants were turned sideways, and radiographic imaging was obtained to analyze the remodeling of the buccal bone plate. In the analysis of the resulting distance between the implant shoulder and the bone crest, statistically significant differences were found in the SCTG when compared to the ECTG (P = .02) and ECCG (P = .03). For mean value comparison of the resulting linear distance between the implant surface and the buccal plate, no statistically significant difference was found among all groups (P > .05). The same result was observed in the parameter for presence or absence of tissue formation between the implant surface and buccal plate. Equicrestally placed implants, in this methodology, presented little or no loss of the buccal bone. The subcrestally positioned implants presented loss of buccal bone, even though synthetic bone graft was used. The buccal bone, however, was always coronal to the implant shoulder.