Dental Implant Macro-Design Features Can Impact the Dynamics of Osseointegration.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of two dental implant types possessing a different macro-design in the in vivo pig model.


METHODS
Titanium Aadva(TM) implants (GC, Tokyo, Japan) were compared with OsseoSpeed(TM) implants (Astra, Mölndal, Sweden), with the Aadva implant displaying significant larger inter-thread dimensions than the OsseoSpeed implant. Implants were installed in the parietal bone of 12 domestic pigs and left for healing for either 1 or 3 months. Implant osseointegration was evaluated by quantitative histology (bone volume relative to the tissue volume [BV/TV]; bone-to-implant contact [BIC]) for distinct implant regions (collar, body, total implant length) with specific implant thread features. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney nonparametric test with α = 0.05 was performed.


RESULTS
An inferior amount of bone enveloping the Aadva implant compared with the OsseoSpeed implant was observed, in particular at the implant body part with its considerable inter-thread gaps (p < .05). Concomitantly, the Aadva macro-design negatively affected the amount of bone in direct contact with the implant for this specific implant part (p < .05), and resulted in an overall impaired implant osseointegration at the initial healing stage (total implant length; 1-month healing; p < .05).


CONCLUSIONS
Although the Aadva implant displayed a clinically acceptable level of osseointegration, the findings demonstrate that implant macro-design features can impact the dynamics of implant osseointegration. Consideration of specific implant macro-design features should be made relative to the biological and mechanical microenvironment.
Department of Oral Health Sciences & BIOMAT Research Cluster, KU Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, Prosthetic Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium.
Marcio
M
Vivan Cardoso
Department of Oral Health Sciences & BIOMAT Research Cluster, KU Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, Prosthetic Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium.
Katleen
K
Vandamme
Department of Oral Health Sciences & BIOMAT Research Cluster, KU Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, Prosthetic Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium.
Amol
A
Chaudhari
Department of Oral Health Sciences & BIOMAT Research Cluster, KU Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, Prosthetic Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium.
Judith
J
De Rycker
Department of Oral Health Sciences & BIOMAT Research Cluster, KU Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, Conservative Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium.
Bart
B
Van Meerbeek
Department of Oral Health Sciences & BIOMAT Research Cluster, KU Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, Prosthetic Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium.
Ignace
I
Naert
Department of Oral Health Sciences & BIOMAT Research Cluster, KU Leuven & University Hospitals Leuven, Prosthetic Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium.
Joke
J
Duyck
D000818:Animals; D015921:Dental Implants; D006801:Humans; D023421:Models, Animal; D016348:Osseointegration / Q000187:drug effects*; D013552:Swine; D014025:Titanium / Q000627:therapeutic use*
D015921:Dental Implants; D014025:Titanium
implant design; osseointegration; titanium