Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Sep 11;5(3):135-57.
doi: 10.3390/jfb5030135.

A novel multi-phosphonate surface treatment of titanium dental implants: a study in sheep

Marcella von Salis-Soglio  1 , Stefan Stübinger  2 , Michéle Sidler  1 , Karina Klein  3 , Stephen J Ferguson  4 , Käthi Kämpf  3 , Katalin Zlinszky  5 , Sabrina Buchini  6 , Richard Curno  7 , Péter Péchy  8 , Bjorn-Owe Aronsson  9 , Brigitte von Rechenberg  10
Affiliations

A novel multi-phosphonate surface treatment of titanium dental implants: a study in sheep

Marcella von Salis-Soglio et al. J Funct Biomater. .

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate a new multi-phosphonate surface treatment (SurfLink®) in an unloaded sheep model. Treated implants were compared to control implants in terms of bone to implant contact (BIC), bone formation, and biomechanical stability. The study used two types of implants (rough or machined surface finish) each with either the multi-phosphonate Wet or Dry treatment or no treatment (control) for a total of six groups. Animals were sacrificed after 2, 8, and 52 weeks. No adverse events were observed at any time point. At two weeks, removal torque showed significantly higher values for the multi-phosphonate treated rough surface (+32% and +29%, Dry and Wet, respectively) compared to rough control. At 52 weeks, a significantly higher removal torque was observed for the multi-phosphonate treated machined surfaces (+37% and 23%, Dry and Wet, respectively). The multi-phosphonate treated groups showed a positive tendency for higher BIC with time and increased new-old bone ratio at eight weeks. SEM images revealed greater amounts of organic materials on the multi-phosphonate treated compared to control implants, with the bone fracture (from the torque test) appearing within the bone rather than at the bone to implant interface as it occurred for control implants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean pairwise relative difference in removal torque values of multi-phosphonate treated versus control implants by time. Statistically significant differences are indicated by an asterisk (* p < 0.05, one-sample two-sided Student t-test).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean pairwise relative difference in rotational stiffness values of multi-phosphonate treated versus control implants by time.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Histology images of toluidine blue stained ground sections: comparison of different groups after 2, 8, and 52 weeks of healing (original magnification 34×).
Figure 4
Figure 4
High magnification of toluidine blue stained histology ground sections of osteoconductive multi-phosphonate treated implants and non osteoconductive control implants after two- and eight-week healing in sheep.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Process of bone formation on a multi-phosphonate treated implant at 2 weeks healing in sheep. A: dark blue, mineralised bone; B: light blue, matrix osteoid; C: light blue dots, osteoblasts; D: white, bone marrow.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Histomorphometrical analysis (%) of the interface compartment adjacent to the implant surface. Mean values by group and time.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Histomorphometrical analysis (%) of the surrounding compartment adjacent to the implant surface. Mean values by group and time.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Mean pairwise relative difference in new-to-old bone changes of multi-phosphonate treated versus control implants by time.
Figure 9
Figure 9
SEM of (a) multi-phosphonate rough Dry (RD) and (b) control (rough) implants retrieved after 52 weeks (3500×). On RD, remnants of adhering trabecular bone is observed, while on control implant only the original rough implant surface is observed.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Implant positions in the pelvic bone of sheep (cranial up and caudal down).
Figure 11
Figure 11
Evaluation of the bone-to-implant contact of three predefined consecutive threads on the left and right implant sides independently of existing bone quality.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Distribution of each 3 sectors on the left and right implant side (altogether 6 sectors) to measure BIC values dependent on cancellous and cortical bone structures. Sectors 1 and 6 are coercive in cortical bone and the remaining Sectors 2–5 in cancellous bone.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Bone compartments (interface and surrounding) for the histomorphometrical analysis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sennerby L., Wennerberg A. State of the art of oral implants. Periodontol 2000. 2008;47:15–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2007.00247.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ekelund J.-A., Lindquist L.W., Carlsson G.E., Jemt T. Implant treatment in the edentulous mandible: A prospective study on Brånemark system implants over more than 20 years. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2003;16:602–608. - PubMed
    1. Adell R., Lekholm U., Rockler B., Brånemark P.I. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int. J. Oral Surg. 1981;10:387–416. doi: 10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Albrektsson T., Dahl E., Enbom L., Engevall S., Engquist B., Eriksson A.R., Feldmann G., Freiberg N., Glantz P.O., Kjellman O. Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted Nobelpharma implants. J. Periodontol. 1988;59:287–296. - PubMed
    1. Brunette D., Tengvall P., Textor M., Thomsen P. Titanium in Medicine: Material Science, Surface Science, Engineering, Biological Responses and Medical Applications. Springer-Berlin; Berlin, Germany: 2013.