Impact of salivary contamination during placement of implants with simultaneous bony augmentation in iliac bone in sheep. Issue 10 (December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jinno, Y.; Johansson, K.; Stocchero, M.; Toia, M.; Galli, S.; Stavropoulos, A.; Becktor, J.P.
• Is Part Of: British journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Volume 57:Issue 10(2019)
• Page Start: 1131
• Page End: 1136
• Publication Date: 2019-12
• Subjects: dental implants -- osseointegration -- surgery -- contamination -- saliva; Mouth -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Dentistry, Operative -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Mouth -- surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Dentistry, Operative -- Periodicals; Bouche -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Maxillaire supérieur -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Face -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Chirurgie dentaire -- Périodiques; Dentistry, Operative; Face -- Surgery; Maxilla -- Surgery; Mouth -- Surgery; Surgery, Plastic; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 617.52059
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2019.10.302
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4356

Abstract

Abstract: Our aim was to investigate the possible impact of contamination with saliva on osseointegration during placement of implants with simultaneous bone augmentation. Six hemispheric shape bone defects (8 mm in diameter × 4 mm deep) were prepared in each iliac bone of six sheep. A dental implant (2.9 mm in diameter × 10 mm long) was placed in the centre of each defect, and then pairs of defects were filled with one of the following bone augmentation materials: autogenous bone, autogenous bone plus bovine bone, or resorbable biphasic ceramic bone substitute. One site in each augmentation group was impregnated with saliva (contaminated group), while the other was not (non-contaminated group). Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) within implant threads were measured after a healing period of five weeks, both in respect of the implant inserted in the augmented bone and in that inserted in the residual bone. Overall results showed that there was a significant difference between the contaminated and non-contaminated group for BIC in the augmented implant (p = 0.028), while there were no significant differences in the implant in residual bone (p = 0.722). For BAFO, there were no significant differences between the contaminated and non-contaminated groups among the different augmentation materials. The results showed that contamination with saliva during placement of an implant with simultaneous bone augmentation had a serious deleterious effect on osseointegration of the aspect of the implant within the augmented defect. Contamination with saliva during placement of an implant with simultaneous bone augmentation should therefore be avoided.