Effects of implant collar design on marginal bone and soft tissue.
10.4047/jkap.2012.50.1.21
- Author:
Hyun Sang YOO
1
;
Sun Nyo KANG
;
Chang Mo JEONG
;
Mi Jung YUN
;
Jung Bo HUH
;
Young Chan JEON
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Korea. jeonyc@paran.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Collar design;
Marginal bone resorption;
Biologic width;
Cnnective tissue attachment;
Junctional epithelium attachment;
Bioseal
- MeSH:
Animals;
Bone Resorption;
Connective Tissue;
Dogs;
Epithelial Attachment;
Plants;
Root Canal Filling Materials
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2012;50(1):21-28
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of implant collar design on marginal bone change and soft tissue response by an animal test MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of Implant (Neobiotech Co. Seoul, Korea) that only differs in collar design were planted on two healthy Beagle dogs. The implants were divided into two groups, the first group with a beveled collar (Bevel Group) and the second group with "S" shaped collar (Bioseal group). Standardized intraoral radiographs were used to investigate the mesio-distal change of the marginal bone. Histological analysis was done to evaluate the bucco-lingual marginal bone resorption and the soft tissue response adjacent to the implant. Mann-Whitney test was done to compare the mesio-distal marginal bone change at equivalent time for taking the radiographs and the tissue measurements between the groups. RESULTS: Radiographic and histological analysis showed that there was no difference in marginal bone change between the two groups (P>.05). Histological analysis showed Bioseal group had more rigid connective tissue attachment than the Bevel group. There was no difference in biological width (P>.05). Bevel group showed significantly longer junctional epithelium attachment and Bioseal group showed longer connective tissue attachment (P<.05). CONCLUSION: For three months there were no differences in marginal bone change between the Bevel group and the Bioseal group. As for the soft tissue adjacent to the implant, Bioseal group showed longer connective tissue attachment while showing shorter junctional epithelium attachment. There were no differences in biologic width.
