Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorMontero Martín, Javier 
dc.contributor.authorBravo, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorGuadilla González, Yasmina 
dc.contributor.authorPortillo, María
dc.contributor.authorBlanco Antona, Leticia Alejandra 
dc.contributor.authorRojo, Rosa
dc.contributor.authorRosales-Leal, J Ignacio
dc.contributor.authorLópez Valverde Centeno, Antonio 
dc.contributor.authorRosales-Leal, Ignacio
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-27T11:41:30Z
dc.date.available2025-01-27T11:41:30Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.citationMontero J, Bravo M, Guadilla Y, et al. Comparison of Clinical and Histologic Outcomes of Zirconia Versus Titanium Implants Placed in Fresh Sockets: A 5-Month Study in Beagles. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(4):10.11607/jomi.3668. doi:10.11607/jomi.3668es_ES
dc.identifier.issn0882-2786
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10366/162509
dc.description.abstract[EN]Purpose: This study evaluated the clinical and histomorphometric results of titanium (Ti) and custom-made zirconia (Zr) implants placed into fresh extraction sockets in beagles that did not receive oral hygiene attention or a softened diet during postoperative healing. Materials and Methods: The roughness of the Ti and Zr implant surfaces was assessed by confocal microscopy. In eight beagle dogs, four implants each (two Ti and two Zr) were placed in the distal sockets of the third and fourth premolars with the implant shoulder at the bone crest and subjected to submerged healing. Standardized radiographs were taken after placement and 5 months after placement (at sacrifice). Histologic and histomorphometric measurements were performed on nondecalcified histologic sections. The main outcome measures included implant survival, bone-implant contact (BIC), and bone loss on the buccal and lingual plates. Results: Topographic analysis showed significant differences between the Zr and Ti surfaces. Roughness was higher for Ti than for Zr implants, kurtosis was close to 3 for Ti, and skewness was negative for Zr. After 5 months, the mean BIC was similar for the Zr (57.0% ± 15.2%) and Ti (56.5% ± 14.4%) implants, and the most severe bone loss site was observed on the buccal wall. The risk of failure was significantly higher for the Zr (43.8%) than for the Ti (12.5%) implants. Conclusion: The implant failure rate for the Zr implants was 3.5 times higher than that of the Ti implants. This may be partially explained by the less favorable topography of the Zr implants, which had, on average, significantly lower roughness (Ra = 0.85 ± 0.04 μm), negative skewness of the surface profile (-1.56 ± 0.27), and higher kurtosis (7.88 ± 1.99).es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.subjecthistomorphometryes_ES
dc.subjectimmediate implantes_ES
dc.subjectosseointegrationes_ES
dc.subjecttitaniumes_ES
dc.subjectzirconiaes_ES
dc.subject.meshDental Implants *
dc.subject.meshZirconium *
dc.subject.meshHistology *
dc.subject.meshTitanium *
dc.titleComparison of Clinical and Histologic Outcomes of Zirconia Versus Titanium Implants Placed in Fresh Sockets: A 5-Month Study in Beagles.es_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publishversionhttp://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3668es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.11607/jomi.3668
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.identifier.pmid25671626
dc.identifier.essn1942-4434
dc.journal.titleInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implantses_ES
dc.volume.number30es_ES
dc.issue.number4es_ES
dc.page.initial773es_ES
dc.page.final780es_ES
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_ES
dc.subject.decscirconio *
dc.subject.decshistología *
dc.subject.decsimplantes dentales *
dc.subject.decstitanio *


Arquivos deste item

Thumbnail

Este item aparece na(s) seguinte(s) coleção(s)

Mostrar registro simples