Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [4]
The specimens were dehydrated in the ascending graded ethanol solution and kept in a pre-filtration solution for 3 h at room temperature and then in the filtration solution at 4 °C for 17 h. The specimens were then embedded in a light curing resin Technovit 9100 NEW (Kulzer & Co., Wehrheim, Germany) polymerization system based on methyl methacrylate, specially developed for embedding mineralized tissues for light microscopy. The polymerization mixture was produced by mixing the solution A and B in the proportion of 9 parts A and 1 part of solution B directly before use. This was done in a beaker and using a glass rod to stir the mixture. The samples were then positioned in the labeled plastic moulds, completely covered in the polymerization mixture, and placed in cooled desiccators and under a partial vacuum at 4 °C for 10 min. The resulting blocks were placed in a sealed container and left to polymerize between −8 and −20 °C. The samples were allowed to stand at 4–8 °C in the refrigerator for at least 1 h before allowing it to slowly come to room temperature. The polymerization times are dependent on the volumes of polymerization mixture used and of the constancy of the temperature at which polymerization is carried out.
The acrylic block was mounted into the object holder of the Leica SP 1600 saw microtome (Fig. 2). The height of the object was adjusted until the surface of the object is slightly above the upper edge of the saw blade. The surface of the block was trimmed to get a plane surface prior to producing slices of a defined thickness. During the sawing process, the water flow was adjusted so that the water jet lands on the edge of the saw blade. The built-in water cooling device prevents overheating of the object and removes saw dust from the cutting edge and thus prolongs the lift time of the saw blade. The most favorable feed rate was determined (Fig. 3). After trimming, the first undefined slice was removed from the saw blade. The desired section thickness was selected, considering the thickness of the saw blade and added to the desired thickness of final section. The section was stabilized during the sawing process. To do so, a glass cover slip was glued onto the trimmed surface of the specimen block using cyanoacrylate glue. These blocks were cut with a low speed saw under water along the lateral surface of the implant [47, 48]. The implant bearing blocks were cut parallel to the long axis of the implant, and 30-μm-thick specimens were obtained.
Serial posts:
- 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
- About this article : 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