Peri-implant bone response to orthodontic loading: Part 2. Implant surface geometry and its effect on regional bone remodeling

Rodrigo Oyonarte, Robert M. Pilliar*, Douglas Deporter, Donald G. Woodside

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

34 Scopus citations


Introduction: Bone response to orthodontic loading was compared around 2 different types of osseointegrated implants (porous surfaced and machined threaded) to determine the effect of implant surface geometry on regional bone remodeling. Methods: Five beagles each received 3 implants of each design in contralateral mandibular extraction sites. After a 6-week initial healing period, abutments were placed, and, 1 week later, the 2 mesial implants on each side were orthodontically loaded for 22 weeks. All implants remained osseointegrated throughout orthodontic loading except for 1 threaded implant that loosened. Back-scattered scanning electron microscopy and fluorochrome bone labeling techniques were used to compare responses around the 2 types of implants. Results: The loaded, porous-surfaced implants had significantly higher marginal bone levels and greater bone-to-implant contact than did the machined-threaded implants. Conclusions: Significant differences in peri-implant bone remodeling and bone formation in response to controlled orthodontic loading were observed for the 2 implant designs. Short, porous-surfaced implants might be more effective for orthodontic applications than machine-threaded implants.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)182-189
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Issue number2
StatePublished - Aug 2005
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Partially funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the American Association of Orthodontists Foundation (Biomedical Research Award 2001).


Dive into the research topics of 'Peri-implant bone response to orthodontic loading: Part 2. Implant surface geometry and its effect on regional bone remodeling'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this