Methods : Osseointegration of standard and mini dental implants: a histomorphometric comparison [5]
The saw blade has a thickness of 280 μm and a feed of 310 μm was selected to obtain the final section thickness of 30 μm. The knurled screw was used for the setting of the section thickness. The prepared section was finally removed from the saw blade. The specimens were prepared for histology by the method as described by Donath and Breuner [49].
Subsequently, the sections were stained with toluidine blue and basic fuchsin similar to other studies [21, 22, 50]. The specimen sections were evaluated at the most central saggital section of each implant under an optical microscope after staining. The images were photographed with a high resolution camera and interfaced to a monitor and PC, observed under the Leica DM2000 microscope, and the images were captured using Olympus DP72 camera and associated software [4, 21, 22]. Bone implant contact (BIC) was measured using Infinity Analyze software. Six images of the same implant were taken and measurements were done. The percentage of the interface contact length between implant surface and bone, i.e., bone implant contact (BIC), was calculated. The percentage of bone tissue in a 200-μm-wide zone parallel to the contour of the implant area (adjoining the implant) was measured.
MicroCT scans of each sample of both types of implants were obtained with a Skyscan 1172 equipment (Kontich, Belgium) at 6 μm resolution with 800 ms exposure time, 70 kV electric voltage, 167 μA current, and a 0.5-mm thickness aluminum filter. The equipment was fitted with a 1.3-MP camera to capture high resolution 2D images that were assembled into 3D reconstructions using NRecon software supplied with the instrument.
Mean values and standard deviations were calculated for bone implant contact (BIC). Univariate analysis was done for all the evaluations. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the differences between the two implants. P value <0.05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were carried out with the help of SPSS statistical software version 18.
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