Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does thread design influence relative bone-to-implant contact rate of palatal implants?

Hat das Gewindedesign Einfluss auf die relative Knochenbedeckungsrate von Gaumenimplantaten?

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

To determine histologically whether (a) changing the thread design between first- and second-generation palatal implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) influences the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) rate of palatal implants subjected to conventional loading, and (b) whether histological evidence of peri-implantitis appears in this setting.

Patients and methods

Patients who had received an orthodontic palatal implant for skeletal anchorage between January 1998 and December 2007 were examined. First-generation palatal implants (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) 3.3 mm in diameter and 6 mm or 4 mm long were used, as were second-generation implants 4.1 mm in diameter and 4.2 mm long. After completion of active orthodontic treatment, the implants were removed and prepared for histological investigation. This study was designed as a comparative analysis of a series of two cases: 28 explanted first-generation (n = 14) and second-generation (n = 14) palatal implants were analyzed.

Results

Bone healing was achieved with all implants. Both types of implants revealed a mean bone-to-implant contact (BIC) rate that was nearly equal: 80.7% (SD 10.7%) for the first-generation and 81% (SD 13.1%) for the second-generation implants. Bone resorption was only observed in 5 palatal implants (3/14 of the first, and 2/14 of the second generation).

Conclusion

Despite differing thread designs, second-generation palatal implants revealed similar bone-to-implant contact rates as did those of the first generation. Few patients presented bone resorption in the peri-implant bone.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Im Rahmen einer histologischen Untersuchung sollte überprüft werden, (a) ob die Änderung des Gewindedesigns zwischen erster und zweiter Generation des Gaumenimplantates (Straumann, Basel, Schweiz) einen Einfluss auf die Knochen-Implantat-Kontaktrate (KIK) von spätbelasteten Gaumenimplantaten hat und (b) ob sich histologisch Kennzeichen einer Periimplantitis finden lassen.

Material und Methodik

Es wurden Patienten betrachtet, die zwischen 01/1998 und 12/2007 ein kieferorthopädisches Gaumenimplantat zur skelettalen Verankerung erhielten. Zu diesem Zweck wurden Gaumenimplantate (Straumann, Basel, Schweiz) der ersten Generation mit einem Durchmesser von 3,3 mm und einer Länge von 6 mm bzw. 4 mm sowie der zweiten Generation mit einem Durchmesser von 4,1 mm und einer Länge von 4,2 mm verwendet. Nach Abschluss der aktiven orthodontischen Behandlung wurden die Implantate entfernt und histologisch aufbereitet. Das Design der Studie war eine vergleichende Analyse von zwei Fallserien: 28 explantierte Gaumenimplantate der ersten (n = 14) und zweiten (n = 14) Generation wurden untersucht.

Ergebnisse

Alle Implanate waren knöchern eingeheilt. Die mittlere KIK war für beide Implantattypen annähernd gleich und betrug für die erste Generation 80,7% (SD: 10,7%) sowie 81% (SD: 13,1%) für die zweite Generation. Knöcherne Resorptionen zeigten sich lediglich bei 5 Implantaten (3/14 der ersten und 2/14 der zweiten Generation).

Schlussfolgerung

Im Vergleich zur ersten Generation zeigt die zweite Generation des Gaumenimplantates trotz eines unterschiedlichen Gewindedesigns ähnliche Knochen-bedeckungsraten. Knöcherne Resorptionen im periimplantären Knochen traten nur in wenigen Fällen auf.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T (2009) Effects of different implant surfaces and designs on marginal bone-level alterations: a review. Clin Oral Implants Res 20 (Suppl 4):207–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aldikaçti M, Açikgöz G, Türk T, Trisi P (2004) Long-term evaluation of sandblasted and acid-etched implants used as orthodontic anchors in dogs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125:139–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bantleon HP, Bernhart T, Crismani AG, Zachrisson BJ (2002) Stable orthodontic anchorage with palatal osseointegrated implants. World J Orthod 3:109–116

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bernhart T, Freudenthaler J, Dortbudak O et al (2001) Short epithetic implant for orthdontic anchorage in the paramedian region of the palate. A clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:624–631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S et al (1991) Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 25:889–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A et al (1998) Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible. J Biomed Mater Res 40:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cochran DL (2000) The scientific basis for and clinical experiences with Straumann implants including the ITI dental implant system: a consensus report. Clin Oral Implants Res 11(Suppl 1):33–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Interscience Publication, New York

  9. De Pauw GAM, Dermaut L, Bruyn H de, Johansson C (1999) Stability of implants as anchorage for orthopedic traction. Angle Orthod 69:401–407

    Google Scholar 

  10. Donath K, Breuner G (1982) A method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissues. J Oral Pathol Med 11:318–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Feldmann I, Bondemark L (2008) Anchorage capacity of osseointegrated and conventional anchorage systems. A randomized controlles trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:339. e19–e339.e28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jung BA, Kunkel M, Göde M, Wehrbein H (2007) Clinical success parameters of paramedian insertion during growth. Z Zahnarztl Impl 23:28–35

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jung BA, Wehrbein H, Hopfenmüller W et al (2007) Early loading of palatal implants (ortho-type II) a prospective multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Trials 20:8–24

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jung BA, Yildizhan F, Wehrbein H (2008) Bone-to-implant contact of orthodontic implants in humans – a histomorphometric investigation. Eur J Orthod 30:552–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jung BA, Kunkel M, Wehrbein H (2010) Implantologie als Hilfestellung bei kieferorthopädischen Maßnahmen. Wissen Kompakt 4:29–36

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jung BA, Kunkel M, Göllner P et al (2009) Success rate of second-generation palatal implants. Angle Orthod 25:238–241

    Google Scholar 

  17. Langhoff JD, Voelter K, Scharnweber D et al (2008) Comparison of chemically and pharmaceutically modified titanium and zirconia implant surfaces in dentistry: a study in sheep. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 37:1125–1132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Männchen R, Schätzle M (2008) Success rate of palatal orthodontic implants: a prospective longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:665–669

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Renouard F, Nisand D (2006) Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(Suppl 2):35–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y et al (2001) Oxidized implants and their influence on the bone response. J Mater Sci Mater Med 12:1025–1031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tinsley D, O’Dwyer J, Benson P et al (2004) Orthodontic palatal implants: clinical technique. J Clin Orthod 31:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wehrbein H, Merz BR, Hämmerle CHF, Lang NP (1998) Bone-to-implant contact of orthodontic implants in humans subjected to horizontal loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 9:348–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wehrbein H, Glatzmaier J, Mundwiller U, Diederich P (1996) The Orthosystem- a new implant system for orthodontic anchorage in the palate. J Orofac Orthop 57:142–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    B.A. Jung & H. Wehrbein

  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial-Plastic Surgery, Ruhr University of Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    M. Kunkel

  3. Private Practice, Berne, Switzerland

    P. Göllner & T. Liechti

  4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    M. Moergel & R. Noelken

  5. Fogszabályozási Stúdió, Private Practice, Budapest, Hungary

    P. Borbély

Authors
  1. B.A. Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Kunkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Göllner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Liechti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Moergel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Noelken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. Borbély
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. H. Wehrbein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B.A. Jung.

Additional information

B.A. Jung and M. Kunkel contributed equally to this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jung, B., Kunkel, M., Göllner, P. et al. Does thread design influence relative bone-to-implant contact rate of palatal implants?. J Orofac Orthop 72, 204–213 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0020-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0020-9

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation