Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the healing of surgically created circumferential gaps around non-submerged-type implants according to varying size and healing periods in dogs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In four mongrel dogs, all mandible premolars were extracted and after an 8-week healing period, non-submerged-type implants were placed. Circumferential coronal defects around the implants were performed surgically with a customized tapered step drill. Groups were divided according to the width of the coronal gaps: 1, 1.5, or 2 mm. First the right side of the mandible was prepared, and after 8 weeks, the left side was prepared. The dogs were sacrificed following an 8-week healing period. Specimens were analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically. RESULTS: As the size of the coronal gap increased, the unfilled area tended to be greater. In terms of bone-to-implant contact and bone density, both the 1 and 1.5 mm groups showed a larger percentage of coronal defect than the apical side, while the 2 mm group showed contrary results in the 8-week groups. The general histologic features in the 16-week groups were similar to the findings of 8-week groups but were more matured, with a higher percentage of lamellar bone. A certain amount of bone filling and osseointegration was observed in the defects of all the groups. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the remaining defect, small enough to be clinically neglected, irrespective of gap size within 2 mm, does not need any kind of regenerating procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jung et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: