Abstract
Background: Stress concentrated at an implant’s neck may affect bone-to-implant contact (BIC). The objective of this study was to evaluate four different implant neck designs using two different drilling protocols on the BIC. Methods: Ninety-six implants were inserted in 12 minipigs calvarium. Implants neck designs evaluated were: type 1–6 coronal flutes (CFs), 8 shallow microthreads (SMs); type 2–6 CFs,4 deep microthreads (DMs); type 3–4 DMs; type 4–2 CFs, 8 SMs. Two groups of forty-eight implants were inserted with a final drill diameter of 2.8 mm (DP1) or 3.2 mm (DP2). Animals were sacrificed after 1 and 3 months, total-BIC (t-BIC) and coronal-BIC (c-BIC) were evaluated by nondecalcified histomorphometry analysis. Results: At 1 month, t-BIC ranged from 85–91% without significant differences between implant types or drilling protocol. Flutes on the coronal aspect impaired the BIC at 3 m. c-BIC of implant types with 6 CFs was similar and significantly lower than that of implant types 3 and 4. c-BIC of implant type 4 with SMs was highest of all implant types after both healing periods. Conclusions: BIC was not affected by the drilling protocol. CFs significantly impaired the -BIC. Multiple SMs were associated with greater c-BIC.
Highlights
Osseointegration has been defined as a direct and functional connection between a bone and an artificial implant [1]
After 1 month of healing, the total bone-to-implant contact (t-BIC) of the four implant types ranged from 85–91% without significant differences among the implant types or between the drilling protocols (Figure 5 and Table 1)
Of implant type 1 decreased from 90% to 75% (DP1) and from 85% to 73% (DP2), while the mean t-BIC of implant types 2–4 slightly increased to 83–84%, 91–92%, and 91–96%, respectively, to implant type, without significant differences between the two drilling protocols (Table 1)
Summary
Osseointegration has been defined as a direct and functional connection between a bone and an artificial implant [1]. Implant stability is a prerequisite for achieving osseointegration. Micromovements exceeding 50–100 μm may result in fibrous tissue formation instead of osseous integration [2]. Implant stability during the healing process is a result of primary and secondary stability. Primary stability depends on several factors, including bone density site dimensions, drill speed, and drill feed-rate during osteotomy preparation, surgical technique, and macro-/microscopic implant morphology [3,4,5]. Secondary stability is sequential to new bone formation and remodeling at the bone-implant interface
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.
