An immediate peri‐implantitis induction model to study regenerative peri‐implantitis treatments. Issue 1 (9th May 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Park, Shin‐Young; Kim, Kyoung‐Hwa; Rhee, Sang‐Hoon; Lee, Jeong‐Cheol; Shin, Seung‐Yun; Lee, Yong‐Moo; Seol, Yang‐Jo
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 28:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 36
• Page End: 42
• Publication Date: 2015-05-09
• Subjects: animal experiment -- experimental peri‐implantitis model -- immediate implant placement -- regenerative therapy; Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12611
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the immediate peri‐implantitis model to test regenerative therapies in peri‐implantitis defects. Material and methods: In an immediate peri‐implantitis model in beagles, the mandibular third premolars were extracted, and dental implants were immediately placed in the distal extraction sockets. Without a healing period, experimental peri‐implantitis was induced by ligature placement for 3 months. In the conventional peri‐implantitis model, dental implants were placed in the healed mandibular fourth premolar region and were submerged for osseointegration. After 3 months of healing, peri‐implantitis induction was performed for another 3 months. After peri‐implantitis defects were formed in both models, regenerative therapy was performed in both models. Results: After 3 months in the immediate model and 9 months in the conventional model, similarly shaped horizontal bone defects (wide and craterlike) were observed. However, buccal bone defects were deeply formed in the immediate model compared with the conventional model (6.02 ± 1.20 and 4.34 ± 0.86 mm, respectively; P = 0.009), but the amounts of bone regeneration were not significantly different between the models ( P = 0.107). On the lingual side, re‐osseointegration was significantly greater in the conventional model than in the immediate model (0.72 ± 0.50 and 1.77 ± 0.87 mm, respectively; P = 0.009), although lingual bone defects were not significantly different between the models ( P = 0.248). Conclusions: Although the immediate peri‐implantitis model is challenging for regeneration, it may be able to replace the conventional model to study regenerative peri‐implantitis treatment due to its short experimental time and similar defect configuration.