Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

ARTICLE

Differences in Healing Patterns of the Bone-Implant Interface between Immediately and Delayed-Placed Titanium Implants in Mouse Maxillae

Correction(s) for this article

Taisuke Watanabe DDS

Graduate student

Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the Hard Tissue, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

These authors contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this author

Eizo Nakagawa DDS, PhD,

Eizo Nakagawa DDS, PhD

postdoctoral fellows

Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the Hard Tissue, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

These authors contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this author

Kotaro Saito DDS, PhD,

Kotaro Saito DDS, PhD

postdoctoral fellows

Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the Hard Tissue, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

Search for more papers by this author

Hayato Ohshima DDS, PhD,

Corresponding Author

Hayato Ohshima DDS, PhD

professor

Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the Hard Tissue, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

Corresponding Author: Prof. Hayato Ohshima, Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the Hard Tissue, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 2-5274 Gakkocho-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata 951-8514, Japan; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Taisuke Watanabe DDS,

Taisuke Watanabe DDS

Graduate student

Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the Hard Tissue, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

These authors contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this author

Eizo Nakagawa DDS, PhD,

Eizo Nakagawa DDS, PhD

postdoctoral fellows

Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the Hard Tissue, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

These authors contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this author

Kotaro Saito DDS, PhD,

Kotaro Saito DDS, PhD

postdoctoral fellows

Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the Hard Tissue, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

Search for more papers by this author

Hayato Ohshima DDS, PhD,

Corresponding Author

Hayato Ohshima DDS, PhD

professor

Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the Hard Tissue, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

First published: 15 April 2015

https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12280

Citations: 11

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Background

There are no available data on the healing process at the bone-implant interface after immediate implant placement.

Purpose

This study aimed to establish an animal experimental model of titanium implants placed in mouse maxillae and compare the healing pattern of the bone-implant interface after immediate implant placement with that after delayed implant placement.

Materials and Methods

Maxillary first molars (M1) from 4-week-old mice were extracted and replaced with the implant following drilling (immediate-placement group). In contrast, M1 from 2-week-old mice were extracted, followed by drilling and implantation after 4 weeks (delayed-placement group). The decalcified samples at 0–28 days after implantation were processed by immunohistochemistry, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end labeling assay, and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase histochemistry. The elements and bone volume of undecalcified samples were quantitatively analyzed by an electron probe microanalyzer.

Results

Osseointegration was completed by 28 days after the procedure in both groups. There were no differences in contact area, bone loss at the cervical area, or rate of calcification at the bone-implant interface between the two groups.

Conclusions

This study found no significant differences in the chronological healing process at the bone-implant interface between the two groups at the cellular level.

Supporting Information

Filename	Description
cid12280-sup-0001-si.jpg355.4 KB	Figure S1. Sequential steps of the procedures for immediately (A–D) and delayed-placed implants (E–I). (A) Tooth extraction. (B, G) Cavity preparation on the alveolar socket using a drill with the gripper. (C, H) Implant insertion into the cavity using a screwdriver. (D, I) Completion of implant placement. (E) Positioning of the gingiva to be removed by a modified needle. (F) Completion of gingival removal before cavity preparation.
cid12280-sup-0002-si.jpg478.7 KB	Figure S2. Micro-computed tomographic (A–D) and stereoscopic images (E–G) of the undecalcified (A–D) and decalcified maxillae (E–G) where the implant had been placed immediately after tooth extraction (E) and subsequently was extracted (A–D, F, G) at weeks 4 (M1, maxillary first molar; M2, maxillary second molar; M3, maxillary third molar; *implant or implant space). (A–C, E–G) Three-dimensionally-reconstructed or stereoscopic views of the maxillae show the normal configuration of bone surrounding the implant. (D) The sagittal view of the maxilla represents the newly formed bone.
cid12280-sup-0003-si.mp47.6 MB	Video Clip S1. A video movie of the procedure for an immediately placed implant.
cid12280-sup-0004-si.mp49.3 MB	Video Clip S2. A video movie of the procedure for a delayed-placed implant.

Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

References

1Chen ST, Buser D. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24(Suppl): 186–217.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Barzilay I. Immediate implants: their current status. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6: 169–175.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
3Hammerle CH, Chen ST, Wilson TG Jr. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19(Suppl): 26–28.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Tortamano P, Camargo LO, Bello-Silva MS, Kanashiro LH. Immediate implant placement and restoration in the esthetic zone: a prospective study with 18 months of follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 345–350.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Vignoletti F, de Sanctis M, Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Sanz M. Early healing of implants placed into fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the beagle dog. III: soft tissue findings. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 1059–1066.
10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01489.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32: 212–218.
10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Tissue modeling following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 615–624.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01317.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Araujo MG, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Modeling of the buccal and lingual bone walls of fresh extraction sites following implant installation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 606–614.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01315.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Blanco J, Mareque S, Linares A, Perez J, Munoz F, Ramos I. Impact of immediate loading on early bone healing at two-piece implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the beagle dog. J Clin Periodontol 2013; 40: 421–429.
10.1111/jcpe.12070
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Colombo JS, Satoshi S, Okazaki J, Crean SJ, Sloan AJ, Waddington RJ. In vivo monitoring of the bone healing process around different titanium alloy implant surfaces placed into fresh extraction sockets. J Dent 2012; 40: 338–346.
10.1016/j.jdent.2012.01.010
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Blanco J, Linares A, Perez J, Munoz F. Ridge alterations following flapless immediate implant placement with or without immediate loading. Part II: a histometric study in the Beagle dog. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38: 762–770.
10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01747.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Kotenko MV, Meysner LL. Morphological features of peri-implant tissue after placement of dental implants into the extraction socket. Bull Exp Biol Med 2011; 151: 492–497.
10.1007/s10517-011-1365-1
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Barone A, Ricci M, Calvo-Guirado JL, Covani U. Bone remodelling after regenerative procedures around implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in beagle dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1131–1137.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02084.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Vignoletti F, de Sanctis M, Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Sanz M. Early healing of implants placed into fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the beagle dog. II: ridge alterations. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 688–697.
10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01439.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Vignoletti F, Johansson C, Albrektsson T, De Sanctis M, San Roman F, Sanz M. Early healing of implants placed into fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the beagle dog. De novo bone formation. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 265–277.
10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01363.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 119–130.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18(Suppl 3): 97–113.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Stadlinger B, Pourmand P, Locher MC, Schulz MC. Systematic review of animal models for the study of implant integration, assessing the influence of material, surface and design. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39(Suppl 12): 28–36.
10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01835.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Davies JE. Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Educ 2003; 67: 932–949.
10.1002/j.0022-0337.2003.67.8.tb03681.x
PubMed Google Scholar
20Futami T, Fujii N, Ohnishi H, et al. Tissue response to titanium implants in the rat maxilla: ultrastructural and histochemical observations of the bone-titanium interface. J Periodontol 2000; 71: 287–298.
10.1902/jop.2000.71.2.287
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Shirakura M, Fujii N, Ohnishi H, et al. Tissue response to titanium implantation in the rat maxilla, with special reference to the effects of surface conditions on bone formation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 687–696.
10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00960.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Sodek J, Ganss B, McKee MD. Osteopontin. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2000; 11: 279–303.
10.1177/10454411000110030101
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23McKee MD, Nanci A. Osteopontin at mineralized tissue interfaces in bone, teeth, and osseointegrated implants: ultrastructural distribution and implications for mineralized tissue formation, turnover, and repair. Microsc Res Tech 1996; 33: 141–164.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0029(19960201)33:2<141::AID-JEMT5>3.0.CO;2-W
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindstrom J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981; 52: 155–170.
10.3109/17453678108991776
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Tsukamoto-Tanaka H, Ikegame M, Takagi R, Harada H, Ohshima H. Histochemical and immunocytochemical study of hard tissue formation in dental pulp during the healing process in rat molars after tooth replantation. Cell Tissue Res 2006; 325: 219–229.
10.1007/s00441-005-0138-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Ferrus J, Cecchinato D, Pjetursson EB, Lang NP, Sanz M, Lindhe J. Factors influencing ridge alterations following immediate implant placement into extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 22–29.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01825.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27Schropp L, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A. Bone healing following immediate versus delayed placement of titanium implants into extraction sockets: a prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 189–199.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 2004; 31: 820–828.
10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00565.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29Polizzi G, Grunder U, Goene R, et al. Immediate and delayed implant placement into extraction sockets: a 5-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000; 2: 93–99.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00111.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
30Chen ST, Darby IB, Adams GG, Reynolds EC. A prospective clinical study of bone augmentation techniques at immediate implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 176–184.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01093.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31Lodding AR, Fischer PM, Odelius H. Secondary ion mass spectrometry in the study of biomineralizations and biomaterials. Anal Chim Acta 1990; 241: 299–314.
10.1016/S0003-2670(00)83660-0
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
32Osborn JF, Willich P, Meenen N. The release of titanium into human bone from a titanium implant coated with plasma-sprayed titanium. In: G Heimke, U Soltész, AJC Lee, eds. Clinical implant materials. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1990: 75–80.
Google Scholar
33Wennerberg A, Ide-Ektessabi A, Hatkamata S, et al. Titanium release from implants prepared with different surface roughness. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 505–512.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01053.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume18, Issue1

February 2016

Pages 146-160

Differences in Healing Patterns of the Bone-Implant Interface between Immediately and Delayed-Placed Titanium Implants in Mouse Maxillae

Correction(s) for this article

Corrigendum

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supporting Information

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley