PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to radiographically measure the bone density at the peri-implant region after osseointegration and to compare the relative bone density achieved by different surface-treated implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different types of implant surfaces were compared, using five young-adult male mongrel dogs. The first, second, third, and fourth lower premolars were extracted. Ninety days after removal, four 3.75-mm diameter and 10-mm long screw implants (Paragon) were placed with different surface treatments in the lower hemiarches. The dogs received two implants each of the following surface treatments: 1) smooth (machined); 2) titanium plasma spray: 3) hydroxyapatite coating; and 4) sandblasting with soluble particles. The implants were maintained unloaded for 90 days. After this period, the animals were killed and the hemimandibles were extracted and radiographed. The grey level of the bone adjacent to implants was measured with a specific software tool (line histogram) and the relative bone density was calculated. RESULTS: The four different surface treatments promote different numeric levels of bone density around the dental implants (sandblasting with soluble particles, 52.45 +/- 2.95; titanium plasma spray, 53.98 +/- 3.67; machined, 55.78 +/- 3.06, and hydroxyapatite coating, 58.2 +/- 2.71). Therefore, the implants can be ranked in terms of relative bone density from high to low as follows: sandblasting with soluble particles, titanium plasma spray, machined, and hydroxyapatite coating. There were no statistically significant differences in bone density among the four groups (P = 0.1130, analysis of variance). CONCLUSION: Surface treatments that add roughness to the implant show numerically higher bone density when compared with machined surfaces. The findings of radiographic density analysis suggest that the soluble blasting media-treated surface provides a greater bone density at the peri-implant region.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to radiographically measure the bone density at the peri-implant region after osseointegration and to compare the relative bone density achieved by different surface-treated implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different types of implant surfaces were compared, using five young-adult male mongrel dogs. The first, second, third, and fourth lower premolars were extracted. Ninety days after removal, four 3.75-mm diameter and 10-mm long screw implants (Paragon) were placed with different surface treatments in the lower hemiarches. The dogs received two implants each of the following surface treatments: 1) smooth (machined); 2) titanium plasma spray: 3) hydroxyapatite coating; and 4) sandblasting with soluble particles. The implants were maintained unloaded for 90 days. After this period, the animals were killed and the hemimandibles were extracted and radiographed. The grey level of the bone adjacent to implants was measured with a specific software tool (line histogram) and the relative bone density was calculated. RESULTS: The four different surface treatments promote different numeric levels of bone density around the dental implants (sandblasting with soluble particles, 52.45 +/- 2.95; titanium plasma spray, 53.98 +/- 3.67; machined, 55.78 +/- 3.06, and hydroxyapatite coating, 58.2 +/- 2.71). Therefore, the implants can be ranked in terms of relative bone density from high to low as follows: sandblasting with soluble particles, titanium plasma spray, machined, and hydroxyapatite coating. There were no statistically significant differences in bone density among the four groups (P = 0.1130, analysis of variance). CONCLUSION: Surface treatments that add roughness to the implant show numerically higher bone density when compared with machined surfaces. The findings of radiographic density analysis suggest that the soluble blasting media-treated surface provides a greater bone density at the peri-implant region.
Authors: A M Vilardell; N Cinca; N Garcia-Giralt; S Dosta; I G Cano; X Nogués; J M Guilemany Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.896