Mobility of B.C.T. Dental implants inserted by one and two-phase surgical method: An experimental study

摘要

Background/Aim. Achievement of the osseointegration of dental implants is of crucial importance for their long-term survival. One of the factors that influence the osseointegration is a surgical method of implantation. The outcome of osseointegration can be evaluated on the basis of implant mobility in bone. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the mobility of B.C.T. dental titanium implants inserted to experimental animals using an one and two-phase method. Methods. The investigation was performed using a split-mouth design on nine dogs, male german shephards, average age of 3.5 years and average weight of 32 kg. Extractions of the third and fourth lower premolars were performed under intravenous (i.v.) anaesthesia with 5% ketamine chloride. Eight weeks after the extractions, the implants, diameter of 4.5 mm each, with four threads 13.7 mm long, were inserted. Eighteen implants were inserted one side of the jaw using a one-phase method, and another 18 implants were inserted contralaterally using a two-phase method. Three months after the implantation, the implant mobility was evaluated. Three measurements were performed with a Periotest device, and average values were calculated. The implant mobility was classified according to the Periotest scale in four groups of Periotest values (PTV) and compared. A total of 36 implants were inserted in 9 experimental dogs. The PTV ranged from -7.666 to + 50. Results. According to the Periotest scale, 14 one-phase implants (78%) were classified into the 0 group of PTV, and 4 one-phase implants (22%) in the 3rd group. Thirteen two phase implants (72%) were classified in the 0 group, and 5 implants in the 3rd group of Periotest scale. The difference in the average values of PTV between the two methods was 0.879 which was not statistically significant. Conclusion. This study showed that the method of implant insertion had no influence on the implant mobility, i.e. satisfactory osseointegration could be achieved by both methods. Further clinical parameters, as well as pathohistological and histomorphometric ones, have to be evaluated in order to assess better outcome of a particular method.