Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-10-13, 10:01:15 | version 1.38.0
T a p e r e d i m p l a n t s f o r b u n d l e b o n e p r e s e r v a t i o n Figs. 1a–d (a) Healed bone. (b) Separate flap where bone repair was observed after 8 weeks of healing. (c) Top DM implant. (d) Implants with healing screws placed at crestal and subcrestal levels. Fig. 2 The histological preparation evaluated the distance from the top of the implant collar to the first contact with buccal and lingual bone (A-Bc and A-Lc), as well as the heights of the buccal and lingual bone ridges with respect to the neck of the implant. b d a c Figs. 1a & b Figs. 1c & d Fig. 2 implant was excluded from the measurement because some implants were inserted into the dental nerve. The total amount of bone in con- tact with the implant was calculated as the sum of native bone and newly formed bone (BIC%). Histomorphometry of BIC percentages was per- formed using a light microscope (Laborlux S, Leitz) connected to a high-resolution video camera (3CCD, JVC KY-F55B, Yokohama, Japan) and connected to a monitor and PC (Intel Pentium III 1200 MMX, Intel, Santa Clara, Calif., U.S.). This optical system was associated with a scanning pad (Matrix Vision, Oppenweiler, Ger- many) and a software package for histometry with image capture capabilities (Image-Pro Plus 4.5, Media Cybernetics, Immagini & Computer, Milan, Italy). The total amount of bone in contact with the implants was calculated as the sum of native bone and newly formed bone. Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 3 | Issue 3/2017 31