Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

implants – international magazine of oral implantology

I case report Fig. 5_Implant #002 (SBA M-line) at 100× magnification. Figs. 6 & 7_Implant #002 (SBA M-line) at 300× magnification. Fig. 8_Implant #007 (ZBM) at 30× magnification. 18 I implants3_2015 All of these features offer advantages and help eliminate some risks. Tissue response, however, can- not be influenced massively. Universal laws underlie the biological response; so structures smaller than 5µmarenotdetectiblefromosteoblasts.Otherstud- ies have shown major advantages of a roughness depthexceeding100µm.However,roughnessdepths oflessthanthataffectfunctionalintegrationandcel- lular apposition negatively. It is reasonable to deduce that implant design, thread design and all macrostructural features only increase primary stability and promote integration untiltheorganismbeginstoformnewbone,sixweeks after bone trauma. The BIC ratio is an important guideline. Softened implant surfaces reduce the BIC ratioifnotdetectedatthecellularlevel.Theresultsare similar if the BIC ratio is reduced through irregular surfaceroughness,structuraldefectsordebrisonthe implant surface. _Study presentation In this study, we examined six failed implants (from16lostintotal),comparingthemwithsixiden- tical sterile-packaged ones. The other ten failed im- plants were reclaimed. All of the examined implants were from the same manufacturer. The fabrication numbers of the failed implants correlated to that of the packaged ones. In this part of the series, we ex- amined the implant macroscopically, up to 300× magnification under a light microscope. A similar or identicalclinicalfindingwasmadeforallofthefailed implants. The implants had two different surface types, one blasted with zirconium dioxide particles and one sand-blasted and acid etched. The implant body de- signwasidenticalinall,withtwodifferentcollars,one machined and one textured at bone level. The im- plants with a machined collar received at the crestal third only double etching. The examination sought to answer the following questions: 1. Are there production faults or residue on the sur- face of the sterile implants? 2. Are there structural defects or irregularities on the surface of the sterile implants? 3. Are the specifications and labelling of the manu- facturer correct and detectable? 4. Aretheredefects,irregularities,residueorotherab- normalities on the surface of the explanted im- plants? After the implants had been placed following standard protocol, re-entry occurred after four to five months postoperatively. Screwing in the im- pression post (implant #005) or the abutment (im- plants #002 and 005; Figs. 4–7) led to complaints. The patients described it feeling as if the implants had been placed deeper into the bone osteotomy. In the case of implant #005, the impression was nonethelesssuccessful.Implant#002wasloadedas planned. Implants #006 and 008 received prosthe- ses as planned (see Part I of this series in implants 2/15).Allofthefailedimplantswereremovedwithin twoweeksofloading.Thereversetorqueneededdid not exceed 5 Ncm. Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8

Pages Overview