Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [1]
Nine clinically healthy New Zealand white rabbits weighing 3.5 kg and more were used for the study, and the animals were housed in the central animal house facility. The head of tibia/femur of the animals were used for the implantation of samples. Rabbits’ tibiae and femur have been widely used as an animal model by various other authors to study osseointegration of dental implants [36–45].
The sample size of this study has been calculated based on the results of a similar study by Bornstein et al. [22]. It was established that 88% statistical power will be achieved by using 18 mini dental implants (3M™ESPE™ MDIs) for the experimental implants and equal number of an established regular implant (Ankylos®, Dentsply Friadent GmbH) for the control. Therefore, the total number of implants used was 36. Each animal received four implants on hind limbs, i.e., right and left tibia/femur head randomly (the heads of tibia and femur have been chosen to get the maximum bulk of bone). Therefore, each animal received two experimental and two regular implants.
The procedures were approved by the institutional animals’ ethics review board of McGill University, Canada. Animals were anesthetized by an intravenous injection of ketamine hydrochloride-xylazine mixture at 35–50 and 1–3 mg/kg respectively according to a method described by Green et al. [46]. Acepromazine was injected subcutaneously at dosage of 1 mg/kg. Further injections of the mixture were given to maintain anesthesia, if necessary [46]. Sterile ophthalmic ointment was put in both eyes to prevent corneal desiccation. Animals were shaved for twice the size of the expected surgical field with an electric razor. All loose hair and debris from the animal were removed. The surgical area was cleaned with gauze and 2% chlorhexidine solution to remove the majority of debris from the surgical site. Antiseptic skin preparation was done starting at the center of the surgical site and moved to the outside of the prepared area in a circular manner. Three scrubs with 2% chlorhexidine solution and three alternating rinses with alcohol were performed. The animal was draped and fixed with clamps on a sterile, impermeable covering to isolate the disinfected area. This was performed by the gloved and gowned surgical team under sterile conditions.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
- Background : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [1]
- Background : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [2]
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [1]
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [2]
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [3]
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [4]
- Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [5]
- Results : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
- Discussion : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [1]
- Discussion : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [2]
- Conclusions : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
- References : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [1]
- References : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [2]
- References : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [3]
- References : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [4]
- References : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [5]
- References : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [6]
- References : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [7]
- Author information : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
- Additional information : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
- Rights and permissions : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
- Table 1 Comparison of % BIC in both groups : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
- Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the experimental and control group : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison
- Fig. 1. Radiograph showing implants in the rabbit tibia : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implant
- Fig. 2. Leica SP 1600 saw microtome : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implant
- Fig. 3. Histological sections being obtained with Leica SP 1600 saw microtome : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implant
- Fig. 4. Histological section of mini dental implant in rabbit tibia stained with methylene blue and basic fuchsin : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implant
- Fig. 5. Histological section of standard implant in rabbit tibia stained with methylene blue and basic fuchsin : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implant
- Fig. 6. Micro CT scan images of the MDIs and Ankylos® embedded in rabbit bone 6 weeks post implantation : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implant