Literature DB >> 11359256

Anchorage of titanium implants with different surface characteristics: an experimental study in rabbits.

K Gotfredsen1, T Berglundh, J Lindhe.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the anchorage of titanium implants with different surface roughness and topography and to examine histologically the peri-implant bone after implant removal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screw implants with five different surface topographies were examined: (1) turned ("machined"), (2) TiO2-blasted with particles of grain size 10 to 53 microns; (3) TiO2-blasted, grain size 63 to 90 microns; (4) TiO2-blasted, grain size 90 to 125 microns; (5) titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS). The surface topography was determined by the use of an optical instrument. Twelve rabbits, divided into two groups, had a total of 120 implants inserted in the tibiae. One implant from each of the five surface categories was placed within the left tibia of each rabbit. By a second operation, implants were installed in the right tibia, after 2 weeks in group A and after 3 weeks in group B. Fluorochrome labeling was performed after 1 and 3 weeks. Removal torque (RMT) tests of the implants were performed 4 weeks after the second surgery in group A and 9 weeks after the second surgery in group B. Thus, in group A, two healing groups were created, representing 4 and 6 weeks, respectively. The corresponding healing groups in group B were 9 and 12 weeks. The tibiae were removed, and each implant site was dissected, fixed, and embedded in light-curing resin. Ground sections were made, and the peri-implant bone was analyzed using fluorescence and light microscopy.
RESULTS: The turned implants had the lowest Sa and Sy values, whereas the highest scores were recorded for the TPS implants. The corresponding Sa and Sy values for the TiO2-blasted implants were higher when a larger size of grain particles had been used for blasting. At all four observation intervals, the TPS implants had the highest and the turned implants the lowest RMT scores. The differences between the various TiO2-blasted implants were, in general, small, but the screws with the largest Sa value had higher RMT scores at 6, 9, and 12 weeks than implants with lower Sa values. The histologic analysis of the sections representing 6, 9, and 12 weeks revealed that fractures or ruptures were present in the marginal, cortical peri-implant bone. In such sections representing the TPS and TiO2-blasted implant categories, ruptures were frequently found in the zone between the old bone and the newly formed bone, as well as within the newly formed bone.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that a clear relation exists between surface roughness, described in Sa values, and implant anchorage assessed by RMT measurements. The anchorage appeared to increase with the maturation of bone tissue during healing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11359256     DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00002.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res        ISSN: 1523-0899            Impact factor:   3.932


  15 in total

1.  Screws with blunt heads.

Authors:  K Deogaonkar
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Laser-treated stainless steel mini-screw implants: 3D surface roughness, bone-implant contact, and fracture resistance analysis.

Authors:  He-Kyong Kang; Tien-Min Chu; Paul Dechow; Kelton Stewart; Hee-Moon Kyung; Sean Shih-Yao Liu
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Proteomic analysis of the biological response of MG63 osteoblast-like cells to titanium implants.

Authors:  Chang-Su Kim; Kee-Joon Lee; Jung-Eun Kim; Yun-Gyu Park; Jae-Jun Ryu; Hang-Rae Kim
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2013-05-12       Impact factor: 2.634

4.  An improved mechanical testing method to assess bone-implant anchorage.

Authors:  Spencer Bell; Elnaz Ajami; John E Davies
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 1.355

5.  The Osteogenetic Potential of Chitosan Coated Implant: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Banna M Alnufaiy; Rhodanne Nicole A Lambarte; Khalid S Al-Hamdan
Journal:  J Stem Cells Regen Med       Date:  2020-12-11

6.  An in vivo evaluation of bone response to three implant surfaces using a rabbit intramedullary rod model.

Authors:  Juan C Hermida; Arnie Bergula; Fred Dimaano; Monica Hawkins; Clifford W Colwell; Darryl D D'Lima
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Biological response of human bone marrow stromal cells to sandblasted titanium nitride-coated implant surfaces.

Authors:  Marco Annunziata; Luigi Guida; Letizia Perillo; Raffaella Aversa; Irene Passaro; Adriana Oliva
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2008-07-16       Impact factor: 3.896

8.  Bone growth enhancement in vivo on press-fit titanium alloy implants with acid etched microtexture.

Authors:  Henrik Daugaard; Brian Elmengaard; Joan E Bechtold; Kjeld Soballe
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.396

9.  Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared with titanium: an in vivo study.

Authors:  Rita Depprich; Holger Zipprich; Michelle Ommerborn; Christian Naujoks; Hans-Peter Wiesmann; Sirichai Kiattavorncharoen; Hans-Christoph Lauer; Ulrich Meyer; Norbert R Kübler; Jörg Handschel
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 2.151

10.  In vitro osteogenic properties of two dental implant surfaces.

Authors:  Marta Monjo; Christiane Petzold; Joana Maria Ramis; Staale Petter Lyngstadaas; Jan Eirik Ellingsen
Journal:  Int J Biomater       Date:  2012-10-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.