A histomorphometric study of dental implants with different surface characteristics.
OBJECTIVE
One of the major keys to achieve successful osseointegration of the implant is its surface properties. The aim of this study was to investigate the bone response to dental implants with different surface characteristics using the rabbit tibia model. Tricalcium phosphate (TCP) coated, anodic oxidized and turned (control) surfaces were compared.


METHODS
Seventy two implants were placed in the tibia of eighteen rabbits. Nine rabbits were sacrificed at 3 weeks of healing and the remaining nine were sacrificed at 6 weeks of healing. The bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the bone volume density (BVD) were assessed by light microscope after 3 and 6 weeks of healing.


RESULTS
Statistical analysis showed that no significant differences in the BIC and BVD were observed between the different implant surfaces and the control group at 3 weeks and 6 weeks of healing. Data also suggested that the BVD of all the surfaces showed significant difference at 3 and 6 weeks.


CONCLUSIONS
The present study has showed that osseointegration occurred in all investigated types of surface-treated implants. In the current study all of the threads of the implants were observed to calculate BIC and BVD values (instead of choosing some of the threads from the bone cortex for example), which didn't make BIC or BVD percentage values better than in the control group, therefore the clinical relevance of these results remains to be shown.
Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate School, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Hyun-Soon
HS
Pak
In-Sung
IS
Yeo
Jae-Ho
JH
Yang
J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Nov;84(5):522-34
11105008
Biomaterials. 2004 Aug;25(17):3403-11
15020113
Periodontol 2000. 1998 Jun;17:36-46
10337311
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992 Fall;7(3):302-10
1289255
Biomaterials. 1990 Oct;11(8):531-40
2279054
Biomaterials. 1996 Mar;17(6):605-16
8652779
Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52(2):155-70
7246093
Int J Prosthodont. 1998 Sep-Oct;11(5):491-501
9922740
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992 Spring;7(1):62-71
1398826
Biomaterials. 1999 Sep;20(17):1587-94
10482413
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998 Jan-Feb;13(1):17-29
9509776
J Biomed Mater Res. 1995 Mar;29(3):389-401
7542245
Biomaterials. 1994 Oct;15(13):1062-74
7888577
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988 Jan;70(1):17-22
2828374
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Jun;16(3):357-68
15877757
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008 Nov;87(2):303-11
18435399
J Biomed Mater Res. 1997 Jul;36(1):55-64
9212389
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995 Nov-Dec;10(6):712-20
8530174
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Sep-Oct;15(5):675-90
11055135
Implant Dent. 1998;7(4):305-14
10196807
J Biomed Mater Res. 1992 Jan;26(1):93-102
1577838
J Biomed Mater Res. 1996 Feb;30(2):145-55
9019478
J Oral Pathol. 1982 Aug;11(4):318-26
6809919
J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58(5):570-92
11505433
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Sep-Oct;21(5):738-46
17066635
J Biomed Mater Res. 2001 Jun 5;55(3):360-7
11255189
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1997 Dec;8(12):721-9
15348780
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 May-Jun;18(3):349-56
12814309
J Biomed Mater Res. 1996 Sep;32(1):55-63
8864873