Shanghai Journal of Stomatology ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (4): 337-342.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2022.04.001

• Original Articles • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effect evaluation on different treatment methods of the gap of immediate implantation in canine posterior mandible

ZHANG Yi-wen, ZOU Duo-hong, ZHANG Zhi-yuan   

  1. Department of Oral Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University; National Center for Stomatology; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology. Shanghai 200011, China
  • Received:2021-04-09 Revised:2021-08-12 Online:2022-08-25 Published:2022-08-30

Abstract: PURPOSE: This study was aimed to explore the formation of new bone after different methods of filling the gap between the extraction socket and the implant in immediate implantation of the canine mandibular molar area. METHODS: Six Labrador dogs aged 1.5-2.0 years were used as the experimental subjects. The fourth premolar and the first molar were extracted from the mandible of each dog, and then 4 dental implants (Astra Tech®, 4.0 mm × 10 mm) were implanted respectively. The mesial and distal gaps between dental implants and the walls of extraction socket were treated in three methods: blank group (group NN), gelatin sponge with colloidal silver (Gelatamp) group (group EN), Gelatamp + absorbable collagen membrane (CM) group (group EG). At 12 weeks, the dogs were euthanized, and specimens were collected for micro-CT scanning and histological analysis. SPSS 25.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The survival rate at 12 weeks after implantation was 100%. Micro-CT scan results showed no significant differences in new bone height, bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume fraction (BV/TV), bone surface area bone volume ratio (BS/TV), bone trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), bone trabecular number (Tb.N) and bone trabecular separation (Tb.Sp) among different groups. Histological analysis showed no significant differences in the area of new bone formation and bone-implant contact (BIC). CONCLUSIONS: After different treatments are performed on the gap between implants and extraction sockets, Gelatamp alone or in combination with CM has no significant effect on new bone formation, BIC, BMD, BV/TV, BS/TV, Tb.Th, Tb.N and Tb.Sp around implant.

Key words: Immediate implants, Posterior mandible, Extraction socket, New bone formation, Dogs

CLC Number: