Osseointegration of dental implants placed into canine mandibular bone regenerated by bone transport distraction osteogenesis

Elias Kontogiorgos, Mohammed Elsayed Elsalanty, Ibrahim Zakhary, William W. Nagy, Paul C. Dechow, Lynne A. Opperman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the osseointegration of dental implants placed in canine mandibular bone and in regenerated bone produced by bone transport distraction osteogenesis. Materials and Methods: Ten adult foxhounds were divided into two groups of five animals each. In all animals, a 40-mm defect was created on one side of the mandible. A bone transport reconstruction plate was used to stabilize the mandible and regenerate bone. Six weeks after the distraction period was finished, dental implants were placed in regenerated and native mandibular bone. The animals were sacrificed after another 6 and 12 weeks of healing, respectively. Results: Microcomputed tomographic evaluation showed that bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was greater at the coronal regions of the implants and decreased toward the apical regions. There was an increase in BV/TV around implants placed in regenerated bone from 6 to 12 weeks of healing. The regenerated group showed lower BV/TV at 6 weeks versus implants placed in native bone but had reached the same levels as the native bone at 12 weeks. Histology showed that direct bone-to-implant contact was greater for implants placed in native bone than for those placed in regenerated bone for both time periods. The removal torque of the implants placed in native bone was higher at 6 weeks than that of implants placed in regenerated bone. At 12 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences in removal torque between the groups. Conclusions: Bone was successfully regenerated in all animals. The implants placed entirely in regenerated bone were osseointegrated. The regenerated bone around the implants became denser over time. This finding suggests that implants placed entirely in regenerated bone will be as well integrated as implants in native mandibular bone by 12 weeks after placement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)677-686
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants
Volume28
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2013

Fingerprint

Distraction Osteogenesis
Osseointegration
Dental Implants
Canidae
Bone and Bones
Torque
Mandible

Keywords

  • Bone healing
  • Bone transport
  • Dental implants
  • Distraction device
  • Microcomputed tomography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Osseointegration of dental implants placed into canine mandibular bone regenerated by bone transport distraction osteogenesis. / Kontogiorgos, Elias; Elsalanty, Mohammed Elsayed; Zakhary, Ibrahim; Nagy, William W.; Dechow, Paul C.; Opperman, Lynne A.

In: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, Vol. 28, No. 3, 01.01.2013, p. 677-686.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kontogiorgos, Elias ; Elsalanty, Mohammed Elsayed ; Zakhary, Ibrahim ; Nagy, William W. ; Dechow, Paul C. ; Opperman, Lynne A. / Osseointegration of dental implants placed into canine mandibular bone regenerated by bone transport distraction osteogenesis. In: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2013 ; Vol. 28, No. 3. pp. 677-686.
@article{a215f0a17cc54871b153ceff94e71297,
title = "Osseointegration of dental implants placed into canine mandibular bone regenerated by bone transport distraction osteogenesis",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the osseointegration of dental implants placed in canine mandibular bone and in regenerated bone produced by bone transport distraction osteogenesis. Materials and Methods: Ten adult foxhounds were divided into two groups of five animals each. In all animals, a 40-mm defect was created on one side of the mandible. A bone transport reconstruction plate was used to stabilize the mandible and regenerate bone. Six weeks after the distraction period was finished, dental implants were placed in regenerated and native mandibular bone. The animals were sacrificed after another 6 and 12 weeks of healing, respectively. Results: Microcomputed tomographic evaluation showed that bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was greater at the coronal regions of the implants and decreased toward the apical regions. There was an increase in BV/TV around implants placed in regenerated bone from 6 to 12 weeks of healing. The regenerated group showed lower BV/TV at 6 weeks versus implants placed in native bone but had reached the same levels as the native bone at 12 weeks. Histology showed that direct bone-to-implant contact was greater for implants placed in native bone than for those placed in regenerated bone for both time periods. The removal torque of the implants placed in native bone was higher at 6 weeks than that of implants placed in regenerated bone. At 12 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences in removal torque between the groups. Conclusions: Bone was successfully regenerated in all animals. The implants placed entirely in regenerated bone were osseointegrated. The regenerated bone around the implants became denser over time. This finding suggests that implants placed entirely in regenerated bone will be as well integrated as implants in native mandibular bone by 12 weeks after placement.",
keywords = "Bone healing, Bone transport, Dental implants, Distraction device, Microcomputed tomography",
author = "Elias Kontogiorgos and Elsalanty, {Mohammed Elsayed} and Ibrahim Zakhary and Nagy, {William W.} and Dechow, {Paul C.} and Opperman, {Lynne A.}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.11607/jomi.2977",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "677--686",
journal = "The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Osseointegration of dental implants placed into canine mandibular bone regenerated by bone transport distraction osteogenesis

AU - Kontogiorgos, Elias

AU - Elsalanty, Mohammed Elsayed

AU - Zakhary, Ibrahim

AU - Nagy, William W.

AU - Dechow, Paul C.

AU - Opperman, Lynne A.

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the osseointegration of dental implants placed in canine mandibular bone and in regenerated bone produced by bone transport distraction osteogenesis. Materials and Methods: Ten adult foxhounds were divided into two groups of five animals each. In all animals, a 40-mm defect was created on one side of the mandible. A bone transport reconstruction plate was used to stabilize the mandible and regenerate bone. Six weeks after the distraction period was finished, dental implants were placed in regenerated and native mandibular bone. The animals were sacrificed after another 6 and 12 weeks of healing, respectively. Results: Microcomputed tomographic evaluation showed that bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was greater at the coronal regions of the implants and decreased toward the apical regions. There was an increase in BV/TV around implants placed in regenerated bone from 6 to 12 weeks of healing. The regenerated group showed lower BV/TV at 6 weeks versus implants placed in native bone but had reached the same levels as the native bone at 12 weeks. Histology showed that direct bone-to-implant contact was greater for implants placed in native bone than for those placed in regenerated bone for both time periods. The removal torque of the implants placed in native bone was higher at 6 weeks than that of implants placed in regenerated bone. At 12 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences in removal torque between the groups. Conclusions: Bone was successfully regenerated in all animals. The implants placed entirely in regenerated bone were osseointegrated. The regenerated bone around the implants became denser over time. This finding suggests that implants placed entirely in regenerated bone will be as well integrated as implants in native mandibular bone by 12 weeks after placement.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the osseointegration of dental implants placed in canine mandibular bone and in regenerated bone produced by bone transport distraction osteogenesis. Materials and Methods: Ten adult foxhounds were divided into two groups of five animals each. In all animals, a 40-mm defect was created on one side of the mandible. A bone transport reconstruction plate was used to stabilize the mandible and regenerate bone. Six weeks after the distraction period was finished, dental implants were placed in regenerated and native mandibular bone. The animals were sacrificed after another 6 and 12 weeks of healing, respectively. Results: Microcomputed tomographic evaluation showed that bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was greater at the coronal regions of the implants and decreased toward the apical regions. There was an increase in BV/TV around implants placed in regenerated bone from 6 to 12 weeks of healing. The regenerated group showed lower BV/TV at 6 weeks versus implants placed in native bone but had reached the same levels as the native bone at 12 weeks. Histology showed that direct bone-to-implant contact was greater for implants placed in native bone than for those placed in regenerated bone for both time periods. The removal torque of the implants placed in native bone was higher at 6 weeks than that of implants placed in regenerated bone. At 12 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences in removal torque between the groups. Conclusions: Bone was successfully regenerated in all animals. The implants placed entirely in regenerated bone were osseointegrated. The regenerated bone around the implants became denser over time. This finding suggests that implants placed entirely in regenerated bone will be as well integrated as implants in native mandibular bone by 12 weeks after placement.

KW - Bone healing

KW - Bone transport

KW - Dental implants

KW - Distraction device

KW - Microcomputed tomography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84898089411&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84898089411&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11607/jomi.2977

DO - 10.11607/jomi.2977

M3 - Article

C2 - 23748297

AN - SCOPUS:84898089411

VL - 28

SP - 677

EP - 686

JO - The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants

JF - The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 3

ER -