Introduction : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [1]
Since the discovery of osseointegration by Branemark in Sweden in 1960, where found that when titanium screws left undisturbed in bone, the osteocytes grow in close apposition to the titanium surfaces and provide firm anchorage. This discovery was successfully applied in dental and craniofacial reconstructive surgery in 1965 [1, 2]. Dental implants became a common procedure in the modern dental treatment with long-term success rates exceeding 90% reaching up to 100% [3, 4] due to the development of some implant systems [5]. However, the increased use of dental implants also improved the fails. The main causes of failure are incorrect position, fracture, peri-implantitis, chronic diseases, and smoking [6–9].
Several studies indicated that screw loosening appeared to be one of the most common complications in dental implants once osseointegration has occurred, especially in single-tooth implant restorations [8, 10, 11]. The incorrect position of implants can cause maxillary sinus membrane damage, pressure on the dental nerves, or difficulties in prosthetic procedure as well as inconvenient esthetical problems. Esthetical requirements of patients have increased, especially for anterior teeth [12, 13]. Even after successful osseointegration, the implant remotion may be necessary [1, 12, 14, 15].
To correct the wrong position or fractured implant is necessary to remove it. For this purpose, it may be used various surgical techniques such as the use of trephine, implant drills, ultrasound, and others. But the use of these techniques cause great loss of peri-implant bone, what limits or prevents a new immediate rehabilitation [16, 17]. Alternatives to removal implants without losing or expanding alveolar bone led Anitua and Orive [18] to use the counter torque. Studies comparing counter torque with trephine drills to remove implants indicated better performance for the first [18, 19].
The causes of implant failure are well known and described; however, what happened with the peri-implant bone that can influence on the success of a reimplantation needs to be better described, with the increase of implant removals to replacement for functional or aesthetic corrections and the need to reduce alveolar bone loss [20].
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