Coated vs Uncoated Implants: Bone Defect Configurations After Progressive Peri-implantitis in Dogs

Abstract

In this study, hydroxyapatite coated vs uncoated implants were used to evaluate the type and dimensions of bone defects after progressive peri-implantitis in dogs. Thirty-two dental implants with 4 different surfaces—machined (M), sandblasted acid-etched (SA), 1-μm thin sputter hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated (S), and plasma-sprayed HA-coated (P)—were inserted into the mandibles of 4 beagle dogs after extracting all mandibular premolars. Experimental peri-implantitis was induced after 3 months using ligature to allow for plaque accumulation. After 4 months, ligatures were removed and plaque accumulation continued for 5 months (progression period). The open flap surgery demonstrated 3 patterns of peri-implantitis bone defect: (1) Class I defect: represented as circumferential intra-alveolar bone loss; (2) Class II defect: circumferential intra-alveolar defect with supra-alveolar bone loss exposing the implant surface; and (3) Class III defect: represented as circumferential intra-alveolar defect with supra-alveolar bone loss and buccal dehiscence. Class I was the most frequent (62.5%) defect pattern around implant types M, SA, and S; while implant type-P showed a recurring majority of Class II (62.5%). Comparison among the 4 implant groups revealed a significant defect width (DW) in implant type-P relative to other types (P < 0.01). However, no statistically significant differences were noted for defect depth (DD) (P > 0.05). We concluded that the shape and size of peri-implantitis bone defects were influenced by the type and thickness of the HA coat together with the quantity of the available peri-implant bone. Plasma-sprayed HA-coated implants showed larger peri-implant defects than did thin sputter HA-coated implants.