Acknowledgements : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
We would like to thank Mario Perussi for supplying us with the customized system, implants, and prosthetic components, Dentifix®, FESB, veterinary professors Rafael Rodrigues and Alexander Correa Borghesan, and CAPES for the scholarship and financial support.
ROS conceived the study, held surgical procedures, and drafted the manuscript. FP did the preparation and helped in reading the histological slides and immunohistochemistry. PHFC participated in its design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ricardo de Oliveira Silva, Fabrício Passador, and Paulo Henrique Ferreira Caria declare that they have no competing interests.
This study was approved by the University Animal Ethics Committee-CEUA/UNICAMP-(Campinas, SP) (no.2730-1/12).
Serial posts:
- Introduction : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [1]
- Introduction : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [2]
- Materials and methods : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [1]
- Materials and methods : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [2]
- Materials and methods : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [3]
- Results : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [1]
- Results : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [2]
- Discussion : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [1]
- Discussion : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [2]
- Discussion : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [3]
- Conclusion : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
- References : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [1]
- References : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [2]
- References : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [3]
- References : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [4]
- References : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [5]
- References : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [6]
- Acknowledgements : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
- Author information : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
- Rights and permissions : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
- About this article : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
- Table 1 Removal torque value (Ncm) of three implants immediate removed (IR) per animal : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
- Table 2 Removal torque value (Ncm) of three implants removed after 9 months (9M) per animal : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
- Table 3 Data showing the expression of osteocalcin in both experimental situations 9M and IR. Osteocalcin values considered (u/pixels) (P < 0.05) : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
- Table 4 Data showing the expression of collagen I in both experimental situations 9M and IR. Collagen I values considered (u/pixel) (P < 0.05) : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs
- Fig. 3. Prothesis fixed installed on the three implants : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implant
- Fig. 4. Representative photomicrographs of each third of the peri-implant bone of 9M experimental condition (H&E, ×40). a First third (cervical third). b Intermediate third. c Apical third. Bone grooving with no altered contour : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implant
- Fig. 5. Representative photomicrographs of each third of the peri-implant bone of IR experimental condition (H&E, ×40). a First third (cervical third). b Intermediate third. c Apical third. Note the edges of bone grooving present rounded contour, mainly in the last third : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implant
- Fig. 6. Immunohistochemical staining of osteocalcin (a) and collagen I (c) in sections from mini pigs mandible from 9M and IR osteocalcin (b) and collagen I (d). There were statistically significant differences to osteocalcin in 9M samples and no statistically significant differences to collagen I samples. Magnification: ×40 (a, b) and ×100 (c, d) : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implant