Implant histology 125

November 1955 and 1957 issues of the Journal of Implant Dentistry, respectively. Over a 5-year period the implants in two dogs did not exhibit any significant histopathologic changes. In a third dog, the implant failed soon after its insertion but was left in place to determine the long-term effects on bone of a failing subperiosteal implant. Despite necrotic tissue and chronic inflammation of the connective tissue, there was no evidence in the bone of inflammation or degeneration. Considering his gross and microscopic findings, Herschfus was most encouraged and concluded that subperiosteal implants are not only feasible but promising.

Marziani on his tantalum subperiosteal implant

Professor Luigi Marziani of Rome carefully re-moved the tissues around tantalum subperiosteal implant posts and prepared slides to determine their organization. Some were more loosely organized than

Fig. 4-95. A, Under low power the soft tissues were clearly oriented around the tantalum subperiosteal implant post. B, Although the soft tissue elements in this slide are more loosely organized, they are still oriented around the post site. (Courtesy L. Marziani.)

Fig. 4-96. Around another implant post the fibers were highly organized, closely adhering to the post. (Courtesy L. Marziani.)

Fig. 4-97. This section was made through the most posterior part of a subperiosteal implant frame. It is well away from an abutment post. The site of the peripheral strut (S) is clearly defined by the dense connective tissue (T) that encircles it. The depression in bone (D) is separated from a bony fragment (B) and the connective tissue as a result of sectioning. (From Bodine, R. L., Jr., and Mohammed, C. I.: Histologic studies of a human mandible supporting an implant denture, J. Prosth. Dent. 21 [2] :203-216, 1969.)