INTRODUCTION: Bone response to orthodontic loading was compared histomorphometrically around 2 different types of osseointegrated implants (porous surfaced and machined threaded) to determine their suitability for orthodontic anchorage. METHODS: Five beagles each received 3 implants of each design in contralateral mandibular locations. After a 6-week initial healing period, abutments were placed, and, 1 week later, the 2 mesial implants on each side were orthodontically loaded for 22 weeks. All implants remained osseointegrated throughout orthodontic loading except for 1 threaded implant that loosened. Light miscroscopy and back-scattered scanning electron microscopy were used to compare responses around the 2 implant designs. RESULTS: Porous-surfaced implants had higher marginal bone levels (P +/- .025) and less relative implant displacement than threaded implants. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in implant surface design can lead to differences in peri-implant bone height and bone-to-implant contact. Porous-surfaced implants might be successful as orthodontic anchorage units.
INTRODUCTION: Bone response to orthodontic loading was compared histomorphometrically around 2 different types of osseointegrated implants (porous surfaced and machined threaded) to determine their suitability for orthodontic anchorage. METHODS: Five beagles each received 3 implants of each design in contralateral mandibular locations. After a 6-week initial healing period, abutments were placed, and, 1 week later, the 2 mesial implants on each side were orthodontically loaded for 22 weeks. All implants remained osseointegrated throughout orthodontic loading except for 1 threaded implant that loosened. Light miscroscopy and back-scattered scanning electron microscopy were used to compare responses around the 2 implant designs. RESULTS: Porous-surfaced implants had higher marginal bone levels (P +/- .025) and less relative implant displacement than threaded implants. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in implant surface design can lead to differences in peri-implant bone height and bone-to-implant contact. Porous-surfaced implants might be successful as orthodontic anchorage units.
Authors: Luana M R Vasconcellos; Marize V Oliveira; Mário L A Graça; Luis G O Vasconcellos; Carlos A A Cairo; Yasmin R Carvalho Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Erika O Almeida; Amilcar C Freitas Júnior; Estevam A Bonfante; Nelson R F A Silva; Paulo G Coelho Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Nansi López-Valverde; Javier Flores-Fraile; Juan Manuel Ramírez; Bruno Macedo de Sousa; Silvia Herrero-Hernández; Antonio López-Valverde Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Renata Falchete do Prado; Gabriela Campos Esteves; Evelyn Luzia De Souza Santos; Daiane Acácia Griti Bueno; Carlos Alberto Alves Cairo; Luis Gustavo Oliveira De Vasconcellos; Renata Silveira Sagnori; Fernanda Bastos Pereira Tessarin; Felipe Eduardo Oliveira; Luciane Dias De Oliveira; Maria Fernanda Lima Villaça-Carvalho; Vinicius André Rodrigues Henriques; Yasmin Rodarte Carvalho; Luana Marotta Reis De Vasconcellos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.240