Guided bone regeneration around titanium plasma-sprayed, acid-etched, and hydroxyapatite-coated implants in the canine model.
BACKGROUND
Endosseous dental implants with rough surfaces have been designed to improve early healing, especially in areas of poor bone or insufficient bone quantity. The aim of this study was to histomorphometrically assess the bone-to-implant contact on 3 different rough-surfaced implants following guided bone regeneration.


METHODS
Mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted in 12 dogs, and healing was allowed for 6 months. Six implant osteotomy sites were prepared, 3 per side, followed by the creation of 7.3 mm wide by 5 mm deep surgical defects in the coronal section of the osteotomy sites. Ten-mm long titanium screw-type implants with titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS), hydroxyapatite-coated (HA), or acid-etched (AE) surfaces were placed; the surrounding defects were filled with canine demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft; implants/grafts were covered with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes; and the tissue was closed. Following a healing period of 4 months, the animals were sacrificed and mandibular blocks were harvested for histomorphometric analysis.


RESULTS
The mean percentage of bone-to-implant contact in the defect and non-defect areas for the different implant surfaces was: AE 16.24% defect, and 28.78% non-defect; TPS 25.08% defect, and 16.96% non-defect; and HA 48.25% defect and 26.60% non-defect. Within the defect, the mean difference in the bone-to-implant contact was significant for HA compared to TPS (P < 0.0001) and HA versus AE (P < 0.0001); TPS versus AE was not significant (P = 0.063). In the non-defect areas, the mean difference in the bone-to-implant contact was significant for AE versus TPS (P = 0.010); all other comparisons were not significant. There were 18 membrane exposures in the 72 implant sites. Data were analyzed again to assess the impact of membrane complications. Using a 1-way analysis of variance, the bone-to-implant contact was compared between the sites with and without membrane complications. No significant differences were seen in the defect areas or in the non-defect areas between the sites with and without membrane complications.


CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the bone-to-implant contact in regenerated bone was greatest when an HA-coated implant was used.
Conner
Kenneth A
KA
Department of Periodontics, Misawa AB, Japan.
Sabatini
Robert
R
Mealey
Brian L
BL
Takacs
Vincent J
VJ
Mills
Michael P
MP
Cochran
David L
DL
D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D000818:Animals; D001672:Biocompatible Materials / Q000737:chemistry; D001861:Bone Regeneration; D016025:Bone Transplantation; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible / Q000737:chemistry; D015921:Dental Implants; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D004195:Disease Models, Animal; D004285:Dogs; D017886:Durapatite / Q000737:chemistry; D016557:Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal / Q000295:instrumentation; D008334:Mandible / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery; D008567:Membranes, Artificial; D016348:Osseointegration; D010027:Osteotomy; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D013499:Surface Properties; D014025:Titanium / Q000737:chemistry; D014184:Transplantation, Homologous; D014945:Wound Healing
D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D015921:Dental Implants; D008567:Membranes, Artificial; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D017886:Durapatite; D014025:Titanium