4.6 Article

Experimental peri-implant mucositis at different implant surfaces

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 513-520

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12240

Keywords

histomorphometry; surface hydrophilicity; immunology; experimental mucositis; immunohistochemistry

Funding

  1. Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To histologically and immunologically assess experimental peri-implant mucositis at surface enhanced modified (mod) hydrophilic titanium implants. Materials and Methods In a split-mouth design (n=6 foxhounds), four different implants were inserted on each side of the maxilla: three titanium-zirconium alloy implants (TiZr) with either modSLA (sand-blasted, acid etched and chemically mod), modMA (machined, acid etched and chemically mod), or M (machined) surfaces in the transmucosal portion, and one titanium implant with a machined transmucosal portion (TiM). Experimental mucositis was induced at one randomly assigned side (NPC), whereas the contra-lateral maxillary side received mechanical plaque removal three times per week (PC). At 16weeks, tissue biopsies were processed for histological (primary outcome: apical extension of the inflammatory cell infiltrate measured from the mucosal margin - PM-aICT) and immunohistochemical (CD68 antigen reactivity) analyses. Peri-implant sulcus fluid was analysed for interleukin (IL)-1 beta, IL-8, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8 and myeloperoxidase (MPO). Results Mean PM-aICT values varied between 1.86 (TiZrmodSLA) and 3.40mm (TiM) in the UPC group, and between 0.88 (TiZrmodSLA) and 2.08mm (TiZrM) in the PC group. Mean CD68, IL-1 beta, IL-8, MMP-8 and MPO values were equally distributed between mod- and control implants in both NPC and PC groups. Conclusions The progression of experimental mucositis was comparable at all implant surfaces investigated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available