Share Page:

Volume 34 , Issue 6
November/December 2019

Pages 1328–1336

The Critical Peri-implant Buccal Bone Wall Thickness Revisited: An Experimental Study in the Beagle Dog

Alberto Monje, DDS, MS, PhD/Vivianne Chappuis, DDS, Dr Med Dent/Florencio Monje, MD, PhD/Fernando Muñoz, DVD, PhD/Hom-Lay Wang, DDS, MS, PhD/Istvan A. Urban, MD, PhD/Daniel Buser, DDS, Dr Med Dent

PMID: 31532826
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7657

Purpose: There is a lack of knowledge concerning the critical buccal bone thickness required for securing favorable functional and esthetic outcomes, conditioned to the dimensional changes after implant placement. A preclinical study was therefore carried out to identify the critical buccal bone wall thickness for minimizing bone resorption during physiologic and pathologic bone remodeling. Materials and Methods: A randomized, two-arm in vivo study in healthy beagle dogs was carried out. The first group of dogs was sacrificed 8 weeks after implant placement for histomorphometric examination of postsurgical resorption of the buccal bone wall. The second group of dogs was monitored during three ligature-induced peri-implantitis episodes and a spontaneous progression episode. Morphometric and clinical variables were defined for the study of physiologic and pathologic buccal and lingual bone loss. Results: Seventy-two implants were placed in healed mandibular ridges of 12 beagle dogs. Two groups were defined: 36 implants were placed in sites with a thin buccal bone wall (< 1.5 mm), and 36 were placed in sites with a thick buccal bone wall (≥ 1.5 mm). No implants failed during the study period. For the great majority of the histomorphometric parameters, a critical buccal bone wall thickness of at least 1.5 mm seemed to be essential for maintaining the buccal bone wall during physiologic and pathologic bone resorption. Suppuration (+) and mucosal recession (-) were more often associated with implants placed in sites with a thin buccal bone wall. Conclusion: A critical buccal bone wall thickness of 1.5 mm at implant placement is advised, since a thicker peri-implant buccal bone wall (≥ 1.5 mm) is exposed to significantly less physiologic and pathologic bone loss compared with a thinner buccal bone wall (< 1.5 mm).

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us