Abstract
BackgroundThe aim of this study was to histomorphometrically compare the implant-host integration between retrieved implants and new implants.MethodsJaws in 10 male beagle dogs were divided into four groups, and 36 dental implants were inserted into the jaws. In groups 1 and 2, experimental peri-implantitis was induced within 2 months after implant insertion. In group 1, surface decontamination of implants was achieved using air-flow and citric acid. In group 2, implants were sterilized with autoclave after air-flow and citric acid surface decontamination. Subsequently, these implants were inserted in contralateral jaws of the same dogs and a 3-month period was allowed for osseointegration. In group 3, the implants were removed from human jaws due to peri-implantitis and were inserted into dog jaws following surface cleaning protocol and sterilization with autoclave and a 3-month period was allowed for osseointegration. Group 4 was set as the control group. After the osseointegration period, all the animals were sacrificed. The degree of osseointegration in all groups was evaluated by evaluating the ISQ values and by using histomorphometric measurements.ResultsHistological findings showed that bone-implant contact (BIC) percentage (mean ± SD) was 83.39% ± 6.37 in group 1, 79.93% ± 11.83 in group 2, 75.45% ± 9.09 in group 3, and 80.53 ± 5.22 in group 4. Moreover, the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and ISQ values were similar in all four groups both before and after the implantation.ConclusionsThe results of this experimental study indicated that there is no significant difference between new dental implants and re-used dental implants with regards to osseointegration around the implant.
Highlights
The aim of this study was to histomorphometrically compare the implant-host integration between retrieved implants and new implants
The results of this experimental study indicated that there is no significant difference between new dental implants and re-used dental implants with regards to osseointegration around the implant
No significant difference was found among the groups and all four groups were statistically similar with regards to bone-implant contact (BIC) percentage
Summary
The aim of this study was to histomorphometrically compare the implant-host integration between retrieved implants and new implants. Dental implant therapy is a successful treatment option for edentulous patients, it may lead to undesired complications after the. The most undesired complication in implant therapy is peri-implantitis which leads to retrieval of a dental implant. Once an implant is inserted, bacterial colonization begins to occur on its surface [6]. The primary goal in nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is to eliminate or reduce the bacteria levels in the peri-implant area and, to re-establish a clinically healthy environment. A number of techniques including laser treatment, air abrasion, citric acid application and conventional mechanical therapy have been used in peri-implantitis therapy. Adequate decontamination may not be achieved due to the difficulty of attaining sufficient access to all the dental implant surfaces
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.
