References : Twist removal of healed vs. nonhealed implants—a mechanical and histological study in mini pigs [2]
Glauser R, Sailer I, Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schibli M, Schärer P. Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont [Internet]. 2004;17(3):285–90. [cited 2015 Oct 6] Available from: http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/experimental-zirconia-abutments-implantsupported-singletooth-restorations-esthetically-demanding-reg/.
Kohal R-J, Att W, Bächle M, Butz F. Ceramic abutments and ceramic oral implants. An update. Periodontol. 2000 [Internet]. 2008;47(1):224–43. [cited 2015 Oct 6] Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18412584.
Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981;10(6):387–416.
Lello GE. The Branemark Novum protocol for same-day teeth: a global perspective. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2002;40(3):268–9. [cited 2015 Aug 5] Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266435601907776.
Kim Y-K, Kim B-S, Lee H-J, Hwang J-W, Yun P-Y. Surgical repositioning of an unrestorable implant using a trephine bur: a case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent [Internet]. 2010;30(2):181–5. [cited 2015 Aug 13] Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20228977.
Li CH, Chou CT. Bone sparing implant removal without trephine via internal separation of the titanium body with a carbide bur. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(2):248–50.
Anitua E, Orive G. A new approach for atraumatic implant explantation and immediate implant installation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol [Internet]. Elsevier; 2012;113(3):e19–25. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.06.035.
Anitua E, Murias-Freijo A, Alkhraisat MH. Conservative implant removal for the analysis of the cause, removal torque and surface treatments of failed nonmobile dental implants. J Oral Implantol [Internet]. 2014 Dec 1 [cited 2015 Aug 20]; Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25436836.
Torsiglieri T, Raith S, Rau A, Deppe H, Hölzle F, Steiner T. Stability of edentulous, atrophic mandibles after insertion of different dental implants. A biomechanical study. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg [Internet]. 2015;43(5):616–23. [cited 2015 Oct 6] Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1010518215000530.
Markwardt J, Sembdner P, Lesche R, Jung R, Spekl K, Mai R, et al. Experimental findings on customized mandibular implants in Göttingen minipigs—a pilot study. Int J Surg [Internet]. 2014;12(5):60–6. [cited 2016 Jan 16] Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743919113010868.
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