Abstract
This study was designed to compare the combined effect of two different drilling techniques (conventional expansion and one-step) and four different implant geometries in a beagle dog model. The nondecalcified bone-implant samples underwent histologic/metric analysis at 2 and 6 weeks. Morphologic analysis showed similarities between different drilling technique groups and implant geometries. Histomorphometric parameters, bone-to-implant contact (BIC), and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) were analyzed, and no statistical difference between drilling groups and/or implant geometry was found. Time was the only variable that affected BIC and BAFO, suggesting that the two protocols are equally biocompatible and osseoconductive.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
