Lim, Hyun-Chang; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7695-1708, Jung, Ronald Ernst; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-1320, Hämmerle, Christoph Hans Franz; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8280-7347, Kim, Myong Ji; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7254-1883, Paeng, Kyeong-Won; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7262-7345, Jung, Ui-Won; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6371-4172, Thoma, Daniel Stefan; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1764-7447, Lim, Hyun-Chang; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7695-1708, Jung, Ronald Ernst; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-1320, Hämmerle, Christoph Hans Franz; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8280-7347, Kim, Myong Ji; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7254-1883, Paeng, Kyeong-Won; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7262-7345, Jung, Ui-Won; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6371-4172, and Thoma, Daniel Stefan; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1764-7447
Purpose The purpose of the present study was to validate an experimental model for assessing tissue integration of titanium and zirconia implants with and without buccal dehiscence defects. Methods In 3 dogs, 5 implants were randomly placed on both sides of the mandibles: 1) Z1: a zirconia implant (modified surface) within the bony housing, 2) Z2: a zirconia implant (standard surface) within the bony housing, 3) T: a titanium implant within the bony housing, 4) Z1_D: a Z1 implant placed with a buccal bone dehiscence defect (3 mm), and 5) T_D: a titanium implant placed with a buccal bone dehiscence defect (3 mm). The healing times were 2 weeks (one side of the mandible) and 6 weeks (the opposite side). Results The dimensions of the peri-implant soft tissue varied depending on the implant and the healing time. The level of the mucosal margin was located more apically at 6 weeks than at 2 weeks in all groups, except group T. The presence of a buccal dehiscence defect did not result in a decrease in the overall soft tissue dimensions between 2 and 6 weeks (4.80±1.31 and 4.3 mm in group Z1_D, and 4.47±1.06 and 4.5±1.37 mm in group T_D, respectively). The bone-to-implant contact (BIC) values were highest in group Z1 at both time points (34.15%±21.23% at 2 weeks, 84.08%±1.33% at 6 weeks). The buccal dehiscence defects in groups Z1_D and T_D showed no further bone loss at 6 weeks compared to 2 weeks. Conclusions The modified surface of Z1 demonstrated higher BIC values than the surface of Z2. There were minimal differences in the mucosal margin between 2 and 6 weeks in the presence of a dehiscence defect. The present model can serve as a useful tool for studying peri-implant dehiscence defects at the hard and soft tissue levels.