title: Clinical and histological evaluation of immediate-loaded posterior implants in nonhuman primates.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate a square-thread design implant and compare the bone-implant contact percentage between immediate-loaded and nonloaded implants (controls) in nonhuman primates.
  
  
  METHODS
  Five nonhuman primates each received 3 implants, with a total of 5 control implants and 10 immediate-loaded implants in posterior regions of the mouth. Ninety days after surgery (and function was appropriate), block sections of the implants were removed and sectioned in 200-mum thick pieces. The block sections were stained with modified Masson for evaluation of the bone-implant contact percentage.
  
  
  RESULTS
  One of the immediate-loaded implants failed. The bone-implant contact percentage of control implants ranged from 50.34% to 64.13% and averaged 56.3%. The bone-implant contact percentage of immediate-loaded implants ranged from 43.23% to 75.72%, with an average of 62.4%. Two implants had lower bone-implant contact percentage than the others, and when these are not included in the evaluation, the bone-implant contact percentage average increased to 67.6%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Immediate-loaded implants in the nonhuman primates often have a higher bone-implant contact percentage at 90 days than unloaded implants. The bone remodeling is different for loaded implant-bone interfaces than for unloaded conditions. However, 1 immediate-loaded implant failed, and 2 implants had lower bone-implant contact percentage than controls. Therefore, although there are benefits of immediate loading, there appear to also be some risks.
authors.affiliation: School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Jon B
authors.initials: JB
authors.lastname: Suzuki
authors.forename: Carl E
authors.initials: CE
authors.lastname: Misch
authors.forename: Mohamed
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sharawy
authors.forename: Oscar J
authors.initials: OJ
authors.lastname: Sarnachiaro
authors.forename: Guido O
authors.initials: GO
authors.lastname: Sarnachian
authors.forename: Luis
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Mota
authors.forename: Gabriel
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Arana
authors.forename: Sergio L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Gotta
authors.forename: Evangeline
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Gotta
authors.forename: Lynna
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Bui
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D016723:Bone Remodeling / Q000502:physiology; D003442:Crowns; D000044:Dental Abutments; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Q000379:methods*; D015921:Dental Implants; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D008252:Macaca fascicularis; D008334:Mandible / Q000473:pathology / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery; D016348:Osseointegration / Q000502:physiology; D011897:Random Allocation; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D015921:Dental Implants