Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Bone loss after ridge expansion with or without reflection of the periosteum


Stricker, Andres; Fleiner, Jonathan; Stübinger, Stefan; Schmelzeisen, Rainer; Dard, Michel; Bosshardt, Dieter D (2015). Bone loss after ridge expansion with or without reflection of the periosteum. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 26(5):529-536.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of the periosteum in preserving the buccal bone after ridge splitting and expansion with simultaneous implant placement.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 12 miniature pigs, the mandibular premolars and first molars were removed together with the interdental bone septa and the buccal bone. Three months later, ridge splitting and expansion of the buccal plate was performed with simultaneous placement of two titanium implants per quadrant. Access by a mucosal flap (MF) was prepared on test sides, while a mucoperiosteal flap (MPF) with complete denudation of the buccal bone was increased on control sides. After healing periods of six and 12 weeks, the animals were sacrificed for histologic and histometric evaluation.
RESULTS: In the MF group, all 16 implants were osseointegrated, while in the MPF group, four of 16 implants were lost. Noticeable differences of bone levels on the implant surface and of the bone crest (BC) were found between the MF and the MPF group. Buccally after 6 weeks, the median distance between the implant shoulder (IS) and the coronal-most bone on the implant (cBIC) was for the MF group -1.42 ± 0.42 mm and for the MPF group -4.80 ± 2.72 mm (P = 0.15). The median distance between the IS and the buccal BC was -1.24 ± 0.51 mm and -2.78 ± 1.98 mm (P = 0.12) for the MF and MPF group, respectively. After 12 weeks, median IS-cBIC was -2.12 ± 0.84 mm for MF and -7.19 mm for MPF, while IS-BC was -2.08 ± 0.79 mm for MF and -5.96 mm for MPF. After 6 weeks, the median buccal bone thickness for MF and MPF was 0.01 and 0 mm (P < 0.001) at IS, 1.48 ± 0.97 mm and 0 ± 0.77 mm (P = 0.07) at 2 mm apical to IS, and 2.12 ± 1.19 mm and 1.72 ± 01.50 mm (P = 0.86) at 4 mm apical to IS, respectively. After 12 weeks, buccal bone thickness in the MF group was 0 mm at IS, 0.21 mm at 2 mm apical to IS, and 2.56 mm at 4 mm apical to IS, whereas complete loss of buccal bone was measured from IS to 4 mm apical to IS for the MPF group.
CONCLUSIONS: In this ridge expansion model in miniature pigs, buccal bone volume was significantly better preserved when the periosteum remained attached to the bone.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of the periosteum in preserving the buccal bone after ridge splitting and expansion with simultaneous implant placement.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 12 miniature pigs, the mandibular premolars and first molars were removed together with the interdental bone septa and the buccal bone. Three months later, ridge splitting and expansion of the buccal plate was performed with simultaneous placement of two titanium implants per quadrant. Access by a mucosal flap (MF) was prepared on test sides, while a mucoperiosteal flap (MPF) with complete denudation of the buccal bone was increased on control sides. After healing periods of six and 12 weeks, the animals were sacrificed for histologic and histometric evaluation.
RESULTS: In the MF group, all 16 implants were osseointegrated, while in the MPF group, four of 16 implants were lost. Noticeable differences of bone levels on the implant surface and of the bone crest (BC) were found between the MF and the MPF group. Buccally after 6 weeks, the median distance between the implant shoulder (IS) and the coronal-most bone on the implant (cBIC) was for the MF group -1.42 ± 0.42 mm and for the MPF group -4.80 ± 2.72 mm (P = 0.15). The median distance between the IS and the buccal BC was -1.24 ± 0.51 mm and -2.78 ± 1.98 mm (P = 0.12) for the MF and MPF group, respectively. After 12 weeks, median IS-cBIC was -2.12 ± 0.84 mm for MF and -7.19 mm for MPF, while IS-BC was -2.08 ± 0.79 mm for MF and -5.96 mm for MPF. After 6 weeks, the median buccal bone thickness for MF and MPF was 0.01 and 0 mm (P < 0.001) at IS, 1.48 ± 0.97 mm and 0 ± 0.77 mm (P = 0.07) at 2 mm apical to IS, and 2.12 ± 1.19 mm and 1.72 ± 01.50 mm (P = 0.86) at 4 mm apical to IS, respectively. After 12 weeks, buccal bone thickness in the MF group was 0 mm at IS, 0.21 mm at 2 mm apical to IS, and 2.56 mm at 4 mm apical to IS, whereas complete loss of buccal bone was measured from IS to 4 mm apical to IS for the MPF group.
CONCLUSIONS: In this ridge expansion model in miniature pigs, buccal bone volume was significantly better preserved when the periosteum remained attached to the bone.

Statistics

Citations

4 citations in Web of Science®
4 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

0 downloads since deposited on 05 Mar 2015
0 downloads since 12 months

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:05 Vetsuisse Faculty > Veterinary Clinic > Equine Department
?? 11061 ??
05 Vetsuisse Faculty > Center for Applied Biotechnology and Molecular Medicine
Dewey Decimal Classification:570 Life sciences; biology
630 Agriculture
Language:English
Date:2015
Deposited On:05 Mar 2015 12:59
Last Modified:21 Nov 2017 17:52
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:0905-7161
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12437
PubMed ID:24965485

Download