Hard tissue formation adjacent to implants of various size and configuration immediately placed into extraction sockets: an experimental study in dogs.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of implant size and configuration on osseointegration in implants immediately placed into extraction sockets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Implants were installed immediately into extraction sockets in the mandibles of six Labrador dogs. In the control sites, cylindrical transmucosal implants (3.3 mm diameter) were installed, while in the test sites, larger and conical (root formed, 5 mm diameter) implants were installed. After 4 months of healing, the resorptive patterns of the alveolar crest were evaluated histomorphometrically. RESULTS: With one exception, all implants were integrated in mineralized bone, mainly composed of mature lamellar bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at the control as well as at the test implants. This resorption was more pronounced at the buccal aspects and significantly greater at the test (2.7+/-0.4 mm) than at the control implants (1.5+/-0.6 mm). However, the control implants were associated with residual defects that were deeper at the lingual than at the buccal aspects, while these defects were virtually absent at test implants. CONCLUSIONS: The installment of root formed wide implants immediately into extraction sockets will not prevent the resorption of the alveolar crest. In contrast, this resorption is more marked both at the buccal and lingual aspects of root formed wide than at standard cylindrical implants.

Influence of implant positioning in extraction sockets on osseointegration: histomorphometric analyses in dogs.

AIM: To evaluate the influence of implant positioning into extraction sockets on osseointegration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Implants were installed immediately into extraction sockets in the mandibles of six Labrador dogs. In the control sites, the implants were positioned in the center of the alveolus, while in the test sites, the implants were positioned 0.8 mm deeper and more lingually. After 4 months of healing, the resorptive patterns of the alveolar crest were evaluated histomorphometrically. RESULTS: All implants were integrated in mineralized bone, mainly composed of mature lamellar bone. The alveolar crest underwent resorption at the control as well as at the test sites. After 4 months of healing, at the buccal aspects of the control and test sites, the location of the implant rough/smooth limit to the alveolar crest was 2 + or - 0.9 mm and 0.6 + or - 0.9 mm, respectively (P<0.05). At the lingual aspect, the bony crest was located 0.4 mm apically and 0.2 mm coronally to the implant rough/smooth limit at the control and test sites, respectively (NS). CONCLUSIONS: From a clinical point of view, implants installed into extraction sockets should be positioned approximately 1 mm deeper than the level of the buccal alveolar crest and in a lingual position in relation to the center of the alveolus in order to reduce or eliminate the exposure above the alveolar crest of the endosseous (rough) portion of the implant.