Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 606947, 5 pages
Research Article

Bone-Implant Contact around Crestal and Subcrestal Dental Implants Submitted to Immediate and Conventional Loading

1Master of Science Program, UNIFEB Educational Foundation of Barretos, Rua Prof. Roberto Frade Monte 389, Aeroporto, Barretos, SP, Brazil
2Department of Oral Health Care Sciences, Dental School, University of Chieti-Pescara (UNICH), Chieti, AB, Italy
3Department of Periodontology, Araraquara Dental School, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara, SP, Brazil

Received 4 July 2014; Accepted 12 August 2014; Published 14 October 2014

Academic Editor: Stefano Corbella

Copyright © 2014 Ana Emília Farias Pontes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


The present study aims to evaluate the influence of apicocoronal position and immediate and conventional loading in the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC). Thus, 36 implants were inserted in the edentulous mandible from six dogs. Three implants were installed in each hemimandible, in different positions in relation to the ridge: Bone Level (at crestal bone level), Minus 1 (one millimeter apical to crestal bone), and Minus 2 (two millimeters apical to crestal bone). In addition, each hemimandible was submitted to a loading protocol: immediate (prosthesis installed 24 hours after implantation) or conventional (prosthesis installed 120 days after implantation). Ninety days after, animals were killed, and implant and adjacent tissues were prepared for histometric analysis. BIC values from immediate loaded implants were 58.7%, 57.7%, and 51.1%, respectively, while conventional loaded implants were 61.8%, 53.8%, and 68.4%. Differences statistically significant were not observed among groups (, ANOVA test). These findings suggest that different apicocoronal positioning and loading protocols evaluated did not interfere in the percentage of bone-implant contact, suggesting that these procedures did not jeopardize osseointegration.