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.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous
