Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the implant stability and bone resorption and formation of two different extra-short implant designs with different diameter rings placed in a dog´s maxilla. Thirty-six extra-short, 5 mm diameter × 4 mm length (Short DM®, Bioner Sistemas Implantológicos, Barcelona, Spain), delayed implants were placed in each hemimaxilla of six dogs at the bone crest level. Eighteen implants of each design (wide and narrow ring) were installed. After 8 and 12 weeks of healing, histomorphometric analyses of the specimens were carried out to measure the crestal bone level values and the tissue thickness around the wide and narrow ring implant designs. In the microscopic analysis, less buccal bone resorption was observed in the narrow ring implants with a statistical significance (p < 0.001). For the peri-implant tissue thickness, the distance from the implant shoulder to the external portion of the epithelium was significantly higher for the implants installed with a wide ring with statistical significance (p < 0.001). Our findings suggest that the amount of peri-implant tissues (crestal bone loss) after remodeling over a period of 12 weeks was smaller in the narrow ring extra-short implant installed in the healed maxilla, compared with the wide ring extra-short implants.
Highlights
At the atrophic jaw, the amount of cortical bone remains stable, while most of the resorption occurs at the expense of the cancellous bone [1,2]
The aim of this study is to evaluate the crestal bone resorption around two different extra-short implant designs in animals
Short implants present a similar success rate compared to conventional ones [14,29,30,31]. Those implants depend on the cortical bone anchorage, because they are mainly used in highly resorbed areas, where the amount of cortical bone remains stable in comparison to the trabecular bone [32]
Summary
The amount of cortical bone remains stable, while most of the resorption occurs at the expense of the cancellous bone [1,2]. The maxillary sinus and the inferior alveolar nerve in the posterior maxilla and mandible limits, in many cases, the availability of the bone to place standard implants [3,4]. To solve these cases, several surgical techniques have been proposed, namely: guide bone regeneration, sinus lift, bone distraction, alveolar nerve transposition, angled implants, zygomatic and pterygoid, and short implants, among others [5,6,7]. It is accepted nowadays that short implants are those that are less than 8 mm [14]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: 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.
