Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2016-03-07, 22:38:59 | version 1.38.0
16 Volume 2 | Issue 1/2016 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation I m pla n t pos ition in g wi thi n e xtracti o n so cke ts defects were measured, as well as the vertical distance between the top ofthe bony crest and the implant shoulder at the lingual aspect. Abutments of appropriate length were at- tached to the implants and sutures were ap- plied to allow nonsubmerged healing. After completion of the surgery, the ani- malswere given avitamin compound (Potenay, Fort Dodge Animal Health, Campinas, Brazil), an anti-inflammatory and analgesic drug (Banamine, Schering-Plough Animal Health, Campinas, Brazil) and an antibiotic (Penta- biótico, Fort Dodge Animal Health, Campinas, Brazil). Three times per week for the first two weeks after surgery, the wounds were in- spected for clinical signs of complications and theimplantabutmentswerecleanedanddisin- fected with chlorhexidine. Afterward, cleaning was performed three times per week. The animalswereeuthanatizedfourmonthsafterthe surgery, with overdoses of thiopental (Cristália, Itapira, Brazil) and then perfused with a fixative (4% formaldehyde solution) through the carotid arteries. Figs. 1a & b Figs. 1a & b Clinical buccal view. Implants placed into the distal alveoli of the fourth premolars in a (a) lingual and (b) buccal position. Note that the implant in the lingual position was deeper in relation to the lingual bone crest compared with the implant placed buccally. Figs. 2a & b Clinical occlusal view. Implants placed into the distal alveoli of the fourth premolars in a (a) lingual and (b) buccal position. Figs. 2a & b a b a b