Influence of surface treatment on osseointegration of dental implants: histological, histomorphometric and radiological analysis in vivo
- PMID: 24737100
- DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1241-2
Influence of surface treatment on osseointegration of dental implants: histological, histomorphometric and radiological analysis in vivo
Erratum in
-
Correction to: Influence of surface treatment on osseointegration of dental implants: histological, histomorphometric and radiological analysis in vivo.Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Jan;23(1):507. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2763-9. Clin Oral Investig. 2019. PMID: 30610390
Retraction in
-
Retraction Note: Influence of surface treatment on osseointegration of dental implants: histological, histomorphometric and radiological analysis in vivo.Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Jan 26;28(1):118. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05530-8. Clin Oral Investig. 2024. PMID: 38277013 No abstract available.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this article is to compare the influence of surface treatment on the integration (at 2, 4 and 8 weeks) of 120 dental implants inserted in 60 tibiae of rabbits.
Materials and methods: Four different surfaces were double-blind tested: blasted, acid-etched and discrete crystal deposition (DCD) (group A); blasted (group B); acid-etched (group C) and blasted and acid-etched (group D). Bone-to-implant contact plus reverse torque and bone level were measured at the time of implant insertion and at 14, 28 and 56 days of healing.
Results: Group A showed the highest early and late bone-to-implant contact (BIC) values: 40.8 ± 2.3 % at 14 days decreasing to 27.7 ± 1.1 % after 28 days and 39.4 ± 1.4 % at 56 days. For group B, the average BIC values at 14, 28 and 56 days were 23.34 ± 2.1, 23.77 ± 1.9 and 29.47 ± 1.7 %, respectively. Group C showed a value of 25.72 ± 2.3 % after 14 days of integration, 34.92 ± 2.2 % at 28 days and 32.91 ± 1.6 % at 56 days. Group D showed a BIC value of 32 ± 2.5 % at 14 days, 32.85 ± 1.4 % at 28 days and 34.04 ± 2.3 % at 56 days. In the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis, no statistically significant differences were found. The Ca/P ratio values were 1.762 for surface A, 1.625 for surface B, 1.663 for surface C and finally 1.722 for surface D.
Conclusions: Therefore, we conclude that even if there seems to be a tendency to obtain better BIC results with surface A (blasted-etched and covered with hydroxyapatite (HA)), no statistical differences were obtained in this study.
Clinical relevance: The study shows the influence of different implant surfaces in increasing osseointegation for immediate loading implants.
Similar articles
-
Removal torque and histomorphometric evaluation of bioceramic grit-blasted/acid-etched and dual acid-etched implant surfaces: an experimental study in dogs.J Periodontol. 2008 Oct;79(10):1942-9. doi: 10.1902/jop.2008.080106. J Periodontol. 2008. PMID: 18834250
-
Early bone healing around 2 different experimental, HA grit-blasted, and dual acid-etched titanium implant surfaces. A pilot study in rabbits.Implant Dent. 2012 Dec;21(6):454-60. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182611cd7. Implant Dent. 2012. PMID: 23149502
-
Effects of a novel calcium titanate coating on the osseointegration of blasted endosseous implants in rabbit tibiae.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Jun;18(3):362-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01323.x. Epub 2007 Feb 13. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007. PMID: 17298490
-
Influence of implant surface topography on bone-regenerative potential and mechanical retention in the human maxilla and mandible.Am J Dent. 2014 Jun;27(3):171-6. Am J Dent. 2014. PMID: 25208367
-
In vivo evaluation of biofunctionalized implant surfaces with a synthetic peptide (P-15) and its impact on osseointegration. A preclinical animal study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Nov;27(11):1339-1348. doi: 10.1111/clr.12723. Epub 2015 Nov 14. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016. PMID: 26567087 Clinical Trial.
Cited by
-
Early bone formation around immediately loaded implants with nanostructured calcium-incorporated and machined surface: a randomized, controlled histologic and histomorphometric study in the human posterior maxilla.Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Nov;21(8):2603-2611. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2061-y. Epub 2017 Feb 2. Clin Oral Investig. 2017. PMID: 28154996 Clinical Trial.
-
Manganese-containing Bioactive Glass Enhances Osteogenic Activity of TiO2 Nanotube Arrays.Appl Surf Sci. 2021 Dec 30;570:151163. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.151163. Epub 2021 Sep 4. Appl Surf Sci. 2021. PMID: 34594060 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration.Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6285620. doi: 10.1155/2016/6285620. Epub 2016 Jul 11. Biomed Res Int. 2016. PMID: 27478833 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Nanofeatured surfaces in dental implants: contemporary insights and impending challenges.Int J Implant Dent. 2024 Jul 4;10(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s40729-024-00550-1. Int J Implant Dent. 2024. PMID: 38963524 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Evaluation of the Interface between a Nanostructured Calcium-Incorporated Dental Implant Surface and the Human Bone.Materials (Basel). 2017 Dec 17;10(12):1438. doi: 10.3390/ma10121438. Materials (Basel). 2017. PMID: 29258208 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous