Influence of interimplant distance on papilla formation and bone resorption: a clinical-radiographic study in dogs.
Identifieur interne : 002834 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 002833; suivant : 002835Influence of interimplant distance on papilla formation and bone resorption: a clinical-radiographic study in dogs.
Auteurs : Rafael R. De Oliveira ; Arthur B. Novaes ; Vula Papalexiou ; Valdir A. Muglia ; Mário TabaSource :
- The Journal of oral implantology [ 0160-6972 ] ; 2006.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Alveolar Bone Loss (diagnostic imaging), Alveolar Bone Loss (etiology), Animals, Dental Implantation, Endosseous (adverse effects), Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods), Dental Implants (adverse effects), Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Dogs, Gingiva (anatomy & histology), Gingiva (growth & development), Jaw, Edentulous, Partially (diagnostic imaging), Male, Radiography.
- MESH :
- chemical , adverse effects : Dental Implants.
- adverse effects : Dental Implantation, Endosseous.
- anatomy & histology : Gingiva.
- diagnostic imaging : Alveolar Bone Loss, Jaw, Edentulous, Partially.
- etiology : Alveolar Bone Loss.
- growth & development : Gingiva.
- methods : Dental Implantation, Endosseous.
- Animals, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Dogs, Male, Radiography.
Abstract
Implant esthetics has been the focus of attention for the past decade, and one vital issue is the effect of interimplant distance on interimplant papilla formation and crestal bone loss. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of 1, 2, and 3 mm of interimplant distance on papilla formation and crestal resorption in submerged and nonsubmerged Ankylos implants after prosthetic restoration. Bilateral mandibular premolars of 7 dogs were extracted, and after 12 weeks each dog received 8 implants. Implants were placed so that 3 interimplant distances were created at 1 mm (group 1), 2 mm (group 2), and 3 mm (group 3). The sides and the position of the groups were randomly selected. Twelve weeks after placement, the implants received metallic prostheses that allowed 5 mm of space between the prosthetic contact point (CP) and the crestal bone (CB). After 8 weeks, the distance between the CP and the papilla (CP-P) and the gingival height at the distal proximal aspect of the prosthesis (CP-DE) was clinically measured. Radiographic images were obtained to measure the distance of the CP to the CB within the interimplant surfaces (CP-IP) and adjacent to the edentulous surfaces (CP-ED). The clinical measurement of CP-P for submerged and nonsubmerged implants was 3.57+/-1.17 mm and 3.10+/-0.82 mm for group 1, 3.57+/-0.78 mm and 3.16+/- 0.87 mm for group 2, and 3.35+/- 0.55 mm and 3.07+/-0.93 mm for group 3. The CP-DE was 3.25+/-0.77 mm for submerged and 2.78+/- 0.64 mm for nonsubmerged implants. The CP-IP for the submerged and nonsubmerged implants was 6.91+/-0.95 mm and 7.68+/-2.73 mm for group 1, 7.46+/-1.43 mm and 5.87+/-1.71 mm for group 2, and 7.72+/-0.81 mm and 7.59+/-1.33 mm for group 3. The CP-ED was 6.77+/-1.33 mm for submerged implants and 6.03+/-1.58 mm for nonsubmerged implants. There were no statistical significant differences for any of the measured parameters. We conclude that when the distance from the CP to the CB was 5 mm, interimplant distances of 1 to 3 mm did not affect papilla formation or crestal resorption of submerged or nonsubmerged implants in the dog model.
DOI: 10.1563/793.1
PubMed: 17069166
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:17069166Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Influence of interimplant distance on papilla formation and bone resorption: a clinical-radiographic study in dogs.</title><author><name sortKey="De Oliveira, Rafael R" sort="De Oliveira, Rafael R" uniqKey="De Oliveira R" first="Rafael R" last="De Oliveira">Rafael R. De Oliveira</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Bucco Maxillo, Facial Surgery and Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Novaes, Arthur B" sort="Novaes, Arthur B" uniqKey="Novaes A" first="Arthur B" last="Novaes">Arthur B. Novaes</name></author><author><name sortKey="Papalexiou, Vula" sort="Papalexiou, Vula" uniqKey="Papalexiou V" first="Vula" last="Papalexiou">Vula Papalexiou</name></author><author><name sortKey="Muglia, Valdir A" sort="Muglia, Valdir A" uniqKey="Muglia V" first="Valdir A" last="Muglia">Valdir A. Muglia</name></author><author><name sortKey="Taba, Mario" sort="Taba, Mario" uniqKey="Taba M" first="Mário" last="Taba">Mário Taba</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2006">2006</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:17069166</idno><idno type="pmid">17069166</idno><idno type="doi">10.1563/793.1</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">002834</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">002834</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Influence of interimplant distance on papilla formation and bone resorption: a clinical-radiographic study in dogs.</title><author><name sortKey="De Oliveira, Rafael R" sort="De Oliveira, Rafael R" uniqKey="De Oliveira R" first="Rafael R" last="De Oliveira">Rafael R. De Oliveira</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Bucco Maxillo, Facial Surgery and Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Novaes, Arthur B" sort="Novaes, Arthur B" uniqKey="Novaes A" first="Arthur B" last="Novaes">Arthur B. Novaes</name></author><author><name sortKey="Papalexiou, Vula" sort="Papalexiou, Vula" uniqKey="Papalexiou V" first="Vula" last="Papalexiou">Vula Papalexiou</name></author><author><name sortKey="Muglia, Valdir A" sort="Muglia, Valdir A" uniqKey="Muglia V" first="Valdir A" last="Muglia">Valdir A. Muglia</name></author><author><name sortKey="Taba, Mario" sort="Taba, Mario" uniqKey="Taba M" first="Mário" last="Taba">Mário Taba</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">The Journal of oral implantology</title><idno type="ISSN">0160-6972</idno><imprint><date when="2006" type="published">2006</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Alveolar Bone Loss (diagnostic imaging)</term><term>Alveolar Bone Loss (etiology)</term><term>Animals</term><term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous (adverse effects)</term><term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous (methods)</term><term>Dental Implants (adverse effects)</term><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Dogs</term><term>Gingiva (anatomy & histology)</term><term>Gingiva (growth & development)</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially (diagnostic imaging)</term><term>Male</term><term>Radiography</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="chemical" qualifier="adverse effects" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Implants</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="adverse effects" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="anatomy & histology" xml:lang="en"><term>Gingiva</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="diagnostic imaging" xml:lang="en"><term>Alveolar Bone Loss</term><term>Jaw, Edentulous, Partially</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="etiology" xml:lang="en"><term>Alveolar Bone Loss</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="growth & development" xml:lang="en"><term>Gingiva</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Animals</term><term>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</term><term>Dogs</term><term>Male</term><term>Radiography</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Implant esthetics has been the focus of attention for the past decade, and one vital issue is the effect of interimplant distance on interimplant papilla formation and crestal bone loss. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of 1, 2, and 3 mm of interimplant distance on papilla formation and crestal resorption in submerged and nonsubmerged Ankylos implants after prosthetic restoration. Bilateral mandibular premolars of 7 dogs were extracted, and after 12 weeks each dog received 8 implants. Implants were placed so that 3 interimplant distances were created at 1 mm (group 1), 2 mm (group 2), and 3 mm (group 3). The sides and the position of the groups were randomly selected. Twelve weeks after placement, the implants received metallic prostheses that allowed 5 mm of space between the prosthetic contact point (CP) and the crestal bone (CB). After 8 weeks, the distance between the CP and the papilla (CP-P) and the gingival height at the distal proximal aspect of the prosthesis (CP-DE) was clinically measured. Radiographic images were obtained to measure the distance of the CP to the CB within the interimplant surfaces (CP-IP) and adjacent to the edentulous surfaces (CP-ED). The clinical measurement of CP-P for submerged and nonsubmerged implants was 3.57+/-1.17 mm and 3.10+/-0.82 mm for group 1, 3.57+/-0.78 mm and 3.16+/- 0.87 mm for group 2, and 3.35+/- 0.55 mm and 3.07+/-0.93 mm for group 3. The CP-DE was 3.25+/-0.77 mm for submerged and 2.78+/- 0.64 mm for nonsubmerged implants. The CP-IP for the submerged and nonsubmerged implants was 6.91+/-0.95 mm and 7.68+/-2.73 mm for group 1, 7.46+/-1.43 mm and 5.87+/-1.71 mm for group 2, and 7.72+/-0.81 mm and 7.59+/-1.33 mm for group 3. The CP-ED was 6.77+/-1.33 mm for submerged implants and 6.03+/-1.58 mm for nonsubmerged implants. There were no statistical significant differences for any of the measured parameters. We conclude that when the distance from the CP to the CB was 5 mm, interimplant distances of 1 to 3 mm did not affect papilla formation or crestal resorption of submerged or nonsubmerged implants in the dog model.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">17069166</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2006</Year><Month>12</Month><Day>01</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2016</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>24</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">0160-6972</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print"><Volume>32</Volume><Issue>5</Issue><PubDate><Year>2006</Year></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>The Journal of oral implantology</Title><ISOAbbreviation>J Oral Implantol</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Influence of interimplant distance on papilla formation and bone resorption: a clinical-radiographic study in dogs.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>218-27</MedlinePgn></Pagination><Abstract><AbstractText>Implant esthetics has been the focus of attention for the past decade, and one vital issue is the effect of interimplant distance on interimplant papilla formation and crestal bone loss. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of 1, 2, and 3 mm of interimplant distance on papilla formation and crestal resorption in submerged and nonsubmerged Ankylos implants after prosthetic restoration. Bilateral mandibular premolars of 7 dogs were extracted, and after 12 weeks each dog received 8 implants. Implants were placed so that 3 interimplant distances were created at 1 mm (group 1), 2 mm (group 2), and 3 mm (group 3). The sides and the position of the groups were randomly selected. Twelve weeks after placement, the implants received metallic prostheses that allowed 5 mm of space between the prosthetic contact point (CP) and the crestal bone (CB). After 8 weeks, the distance between the CP and the papilla (CP-P) and the gingival height at the distal proximal aspect of the prosthesis (CP-DE) was clinically measured. Radiographic images were obtained to measure the distance of the CP to the CB within the interimplant surfaces (CP-IP) and adjacent to the edentulous surfaces (CP-ED). The clinical measurement of CP-P for submerged and nonsubmerged implants was 3.57+/-1.17 mm and 3.10+/-0.82 mm for group 1, 3.57+/-0.78 mm and 3.16+/- 0.87 mm for group 2, and 3.35+/- 0.55 mm and 3.07+/-0.93 mm for group 3. The CP-DE was 3.25+/-0.77 mm for submerged and 2.78+/- 0.64 mm for nonsubmerged implants. The CP-IP for the submerged and nonsubmerged implants was 6.91+/-0.95 mm and 7.68+/-2.73 mm for group 1, 7.46+/-1.43 mm and 5.87+/-1.71 mm for group 2, and 7.72+/-0.81 mm and 7.59+/-1.33 mm for group 3. The CP-ED was 6.77+/-1.33 mm for submerged implants and 6.03+/-1.58 mm for nonsubmerged implants. There were no statistical significant differences for any of the measured parameters. We conclude that when the distance from the CP to the CB was 5 mm, interimplant distances of 1 to 3 mm did not affect papilla formation or crestal resorption of submerged or nonsubmerged implants in the dog model.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>de Oliveira</LastName><ForeName>Rafael R</ForeName><Initials>RR</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Bucco Maxillo, Facial Surgery and Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Novaes</LastName><ForeName>Arthur B</ForeName><Initials>AB</Initials><Suffix>Jr</Suffix></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Papalexiou</LastName><ForeName>Vula</ForeName><Initials>V</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Muglia</LastName><ForeName>Valdir A</ForeName><Initials>VA</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Taba</LastName><ForeName>Mário</ForeName><Initials>M</Initials><Suffix>Jr</Suffix></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>United States</Country><MedlineTA>J Oral Implantol</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>7801086</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0160-6972</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><ChemicalList><Chemical><RegistryNumber>0</RegistryNumber><NameOfSubstance UI="D015921">Dental Implants</NameOfSubstance></Chemical></ChemicalList><CitationSubset>D</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D016301" MajorTopicYN="N">Alveolar Bone Loss</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000000981" MajorTopicYN="N">diagnostic imaging</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000209" MajorTopicYN="Y">etiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000818" MajorTopicYN="N">Animals</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003758" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Implantation, Endosseous</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000009" MajorTopicYN="N">adverse effects</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="Y">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D015921" MajorTopicYN="Y">Dental Implants</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000009" MajorTopicYN="N">adverse effects</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D019094" MajorTopicYN="N">Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D004285" MajorTopicYN="N">Dogs</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005881" MajorTopicYN="N">Gingiva</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000033" MajorTopicYN="N">anatomy & histology</QualifierName><QualifierName UI="Q000254" MajorTopicYN="Y">growth & development</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007576" MajorTopicYN="N">Jaw, Edentulous, Partially</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000000981" MajorTopicYN="N">diagnostic imaging</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008297" MajorTopicYN="N">Male</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011859" MajorTopicYN="N">Radiography</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2006</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>31</Day><Hour>9</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2006</Year><Month>12</Month><Day>9</Day><Hour>9</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2006</Year><Month>10</Month><Day>31</Day><Hour>9</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17069166</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1563/793.1</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002834 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002834 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:17069166
|texte= Influence of interimplant distance on papilla formation and bone resorption: a clinical-radiographic study in dogs.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:17069166" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |