{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04013605442176871, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017006802721088437, 'mean_word_length': 4.448148148148148, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Histological Evaluation of the Serf EVL Evolution Implant: A Pilot Study in a Dog Model

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare bone-to-implant contact (BIC) of the one-stage sandblasted surface EVL implant (SERF, Decines, France) with that of the two-stage turned (machined) Branemark Nobel BioCare implant in a dog model system. Materials and MethodsThree 1-year old female beagle dogs (canine) were acquired, examined, and quarantined. In dog no. 1, three test implants were placed on one side of the jaw, and four control implants were placed on the other side. In dog no. 2, two test implants were placed in alternation with two control implants on the left and right sides (total 4 tests, 4 controls). In dog no. 3, three test implants were placed on one side and three control implants on the other. After a 3-month period of healing, the dogs were killed and the jaws sectioned for histological preparation. Eleven implants, six tests, and five controls were available for histological evaluation. ResultsThe percent of BIC for the test implants varied from 24.9% to 61.6%, with an average of 42.7%. The percent of BIC for the control implants varied from 22.1% to 42.6%, with an average of 27.4%. ConclusionThe degree of BIC of the EVL implants was on average greater than that of the turned surface of the Branemark implant. However, because of the limited number of implants placed in this pilot study, the results should be interpreted with caution.