The effect of dental implant spacing on peri-implant bone using the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) tibia model

C. Lee Hatley, Stephen M. Cameron, Michael F. Cuenin, Merle H Parker, Stevan H. Thompson, Stephen B. Harvey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the effects of implant proximity on inter-implant bone height, density, and osseointegration using digital radiography and histology. Materials and Methods: After a feasibility study, a total of 80 endosteal implants were placed in 20 New Zealand White Rabbit tibias. With the aid of a surgical jig, four 8.5-mm implants were placed in the medial aspect of the tibial crest at inter-implant distances of approximately 1, 1.5, and 3 mm. Standardized digital radiographs using a paralleling device were made immediately after placement of implants. Implants were allowed to osseointegrate for 90 days. After this healing period, the animals were sacrificed, and the standardized radiographs were repeated. The tibias were harvested, processed, and invested in epoxy. Sagittal sections were made from each specimen for histologic evaluation. The initial and postmortem digital radiographs were evaluated for inter-implant distances, vertical bone height changes over time and between implant pairs, and bone density changes over time and between implant pairs using a computer image analysis program and computer statistics program. Results: The actual inter-implant distances were consistent in a range of 0.2 mm. Bone height increased significantly from presurgical levels at all 3 locations (p < .0005). Repeated measures analysis of variance comparing change in bone height at the 3 implant pair distances showed significant differences among the 3 (p = .002). Paired t tests showed that the amount of bone growth at the 1-mm separation site was significantly greater than the 1.5-mm site (p = .026) and the 3-mm site (p = .001), whereas bone growth at the 1.5- and 3-mm sites did not show significant differences (p = .162). A repeated measures analysis of variance comparing change in bone density showed no significant differences (p > .05) among the 3 inter-implant distances for either the 8-mm position (approximately crestal bone height) or the 6-mm position (approximately 2 mm subcrestal). Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, it seems placing implants closely together does not adversely affect bone height or density. Conversely, it seems that placing implants closer together may increase bone growth. J Prosthodont 2001;10:154-159. This is a US government work. There are no restrictions on its use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)154-159
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Prosthodontics
Volume10
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

Fingerprint

Dental Implants
Tibia
Rabbits
Bone and Bones
Bone Density
Radiographic Image Enhancement
Osseointegration
Bone Development
Feasibility Studies
Histology
Software
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Bone histology
  • Digital radiodensitometry
  • Digital radiography
  • Implant spacing
  • Implants

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

The effect of dental implant spacing on peri-implant bone using the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) tibia model. / Lee Hatley, C.; Cameron, Stephen M.; Cuenin, Michael F.; Parker, Merle H; Thompson, Stevan H.; Harvey, Stephen B.

In: Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol. 10, No. 3, 01.01.2001, p. 154-159.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lee Hatley, C. ; Cameron, Stephen M. ; Cuenin, Michael F. ; Parker, Merle H ; Thompson, Stevan H. ; Harvey, Stephen B. / The effect of dental implant spacing on peri-implant bone using the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) tibia model. In: Journal of Prosthodontics. 2001 ; Vol. 10, No. 3. pp. 154-159.
@article{22f354fa334841a5aca92a76903c56a1,
title = "The effect of dental implant spacing on peri-implant bone using the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) tibia model",
abstract = "Purpose: This study investigated the effects of implant proximity on inter-implant bone height, density, and osseointegration using digital radiography and histology. Materials and Methods: After a feasibility study, a total of 80 endosteal implants were placed in 20 New Zealand White Rabbit tibias. With the aid of a surgical jig, four 8.5-mm implants were placed in the medial aspect of the tibial crest at inter-implant distances of approximately 1, 1.5, and 3 mm. Standardized digital radiographs using a paralleling device were made immediately after placement of implants. Implants were allowed to osseointegrate for 90 days. After this healing period, the animals were sacrificed, and the standardized radiographs were repeated. The tibias were harvested, processed, and invested in epoxy. Sagittal sections were made from each specimen for histologic evaluation. The initial and postmortem digital radiographs were evaluated for inter-implant distances, vertical bone height changes over time and between implant pairs, and bone density changes over time and between implant pairs using a computer image analysis program and computer statistics program. Results: The actual inter-implant distances were consistent in a range of 0.2 mm. Bone height increased significantly from presurgical levels at all 3 locations (p < .0005). Repeated measures analysis of variance comparing change in bone height at the 3 implant pair distances showed significant differences among the 3 (p = .002). Paired t tests showed that the amount of bone growth at the 1-mm separation site was significantly greater than the 1.5-mm site (p = .026) and the 3-mm site (p = .001), whereas bone growth at the 1.5- and 3-mm sites did not show significant differences (p = .162). A repeated measures analysis of variance comparing change in bone density showed no significant differences (p > .05) among the 3 inter-implant distances for either the 8-mm position (approximately crestal bone height) or the 6-mm position (approximately 2 mm subcrestal). Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, it seems placing implants closely together does not adversely affect bone height or density. Conversely, it seems that placing implants closer together may increase bone growth. J Prosthodont 2001;10:154-159. This is a US government work. There are no restrictions on its use.",
keywords = "Bone histology, Digital radiodensitometry, Digital radiography, Implant spacing, Implants",
author = "{Lee Hatley}, C. and Cameron, {Stephen M.} and Cuenin, {Michael F.} and Parker, {Merle H} and Thompson, {Stevan H.} and Harvey, {Stephen B.}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1053/jpro.2001.27336",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "154--159",
journal = "Journal of Prosthodontics",
issn = "1059-941X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of dental implant spacing on peri-implant bone using the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) tibia model

AU - Lee Hatley, C.

AU - Cameron, Stephen M.

AU - Cuenin, Michael F.

AU - Parker, Merle H

AU - Thompson, Stevan H.

AU - Harvey, Stephen B.

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - Purpose: This study investigated the effects of implant proximity on inter-implant bone height, density, and osseointegration using digital radiography and histology. Materials and Methods: After a feasibility study, a total of 80 endosteal implants were placed in 20 New Zealand White Rabbit tibias. With the aid of a surgical jig, four 8.5-mm implants were placed in the medial aspect of the tibial crest at inter-implant distances of approximately 1, 1.5, and 3 mm. Standardized digital radiographs using a paralleling device were made immediately after placement of implants. Implants were allowed to osseointegrate for 90 days. After this healing period, the animals were sacrificed, and the standardized radiographs were repeated. The tibias were harvested, processed, and invested in epoxy. Sagittal sections were made from each specimen for histologic evaluation. The initial and postmortem digital radiographs were evaluated for inter-implant distances, vertical bone height changes over time and between implant pairs, and bone density changes over time and between implant pairs using a computer image analysis program and computer statistics program. Results: The actual inter-implant distances were consistent in a range of 0.2 mm. Bone height increased significantly from presurgical levels at all 3 locations (p < .0005). Repeated measures analysis of variance comparing change in bone height at the 3 implant pair distances showed significant differences among the 3 (p = .002). Paired t tests showed that the amount of bone growth at the 1-mm separation site was significantly greater than the 1.5-mm site (p = .026) and the 3-mm site (p = .001), whereas bone growth at the 1.5- and 3-mm sites did not show significant differences (p = .162). A repeated measures analysis of variance comparing change in bone density showed no significant differences (p > .05) among the 3 inter-implant distances for either the 8-mm position (approximately crestal bone height) or the 6-mm position (approximately 2 mm subcrestal). Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, it seems placing implants closely together does not adversely affect bone height or density. Conversely, it seems that placing implants closer together may increase bone growth. J Prosthodont 2001;10:154-159. This is a US government work. There are no restrictions on its use.

AB - Purpose: This study investigated the effects of implant proximity on inter-implant bone height, density, and osseointegration using digital radiography and histology. Materials and Methods: After a feasibility study, a total of 80 endosteal implants were placed in 20 New Zealand White Rabbit tibias. With the aid of a surgical jig, four 8.5-mm implants were placed in the medial aspect of the tibial crest at inter-implant distances of approximately 1, 1.5, and 3 mm. Standardized digital radiographs using a paralleling device were made immediately after placement of implants. Implants were allowed to osseointegrate for 90 days. After this healing period, the animals were sacrificed, and the standardized radiographs were repeated. The tibias were harvested, processed, and invested in epoxy. Sagittal sections were made from each specimen for histologic evaluation. The initial and postmortem digital radiographs were evaluated for inter-implant distances, vertical bone height changes over time and between implant pairs, and bone density changes over time and between implant pairs using a computer image analysis program and computer statistics program. Results: The actual inter-implant distances were consistent in a range of 0.2 mm. Bone height increased significantly from presurgical levels at all 3 locations (p < .0005). Repeated measures analysis of variance comparing change in bone height at the 3 implant pair distances showed significant differences among the 3 (p = .002). Paired t tests showed that the amount of bone growth at the 1-mm separation site was significantly greater than the 1.5-mm site (p = .026) and the 3-mm site (p = .001), whereas bone growth at the 1.5- and 3-mm sites did not show significant differences (p = .162). A repeated measures analysis of variance comparing change in bone density showed no significant differences (p > .05) among the 3 inter-implant distances for either the 8-mm position (approximately crestal bone height) or the 6-mm position (approximately 2 mm subcrestal). Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, it seems placing implants closely together does not adversely affect bone height or density. Conversely, it seems that placing implants closer together may increase bone growth. J Prosthodont 2001;10:154-159. This is a US government work. There are no restrictions on its use.

KW - Bone histology

KW - Digital radiodensitometry

KW - Digital radiography

KW - Implant spacing

KW - Implants

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035461904&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035461904&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/jpro.2001.27336

DO - 10.1053/jpro.2001.27336

M3 - Article

C2 - 11641843

AN - SCOPUS:0035461904

VL - 10

SP - 154

EP - 159

JO - Journal of Prosthodontics

JF - Journal of Prosthodontics

SN - 1059-941X

IS - 3

ER -