AIM: Tissue formation at the implant interface is known to be sensitive to mechanical stimuli. The aim of the study was to compare the bone formation around immediately loaded versus unloaded implants in two different implant macro-designs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A repeated sampling bone chamber with a central implant was installed in the tibia of 10 rabbits. Highly controlled loading experiments were designed for a cylindrical (CL) and screw-shaped (SL) implant, while the unloaded screw-shaped (SU) implant served as a control. An F-statistic model with alpha=5% determined statistical significance. RESULTS: A significantly higher bone area fraction was observed for SL compared with SU (p<0.0001). The mineralized bone fraction was the highest for SL and significantly different from SU (p<0.0001). The chance that osteoid- and bone-to-implant contact occurred was the highest for SL and significantly different from SU (p<0.0001), but not from CL. When bone-to-implant contact was observed, a loading (SL versus SU: p=0.0049) as well as an implant geometry effect (SL versus CL: p=0.01) was found, in favour of the SL condition. CONCLUSIONS: Well-controlled immediate implant loading accelerates tissue mineralization at the interface. Adequate bone stimulation via mechanical coupling may account for the larger bone response around the screw-type implant compared with the cylindrical implant.
AIM: Tissue formation at the implant interface is known to be sensitive to mechanical stimuli. The aim of the study was to compare the bone formation around immediately loaded versus unloaded implants in two different implant macro-designs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A repeated sampling bone chamber with a central implant was installed in the tibia of 10 rabbits. Highly controlled loading experiments were designed for a cylindrical (CL) and screw-shaped (SL) implant, while the unloaded screw-shaped (SU) implant served as a control. An F-statistic model with alpha=5% determined statistical significance. RESULTS: A significantly higher bone area fraction was observed for SL compared with SU (p<0.0001). The mineralized bone fraction was the highest for SL and significantly different from SU (p<0.0001). The chance that osteoid- and bone-to-implant contact occurred was the highest for SL and significantly different from SU (p<0.0001), but not from CL. When bone-to-implant contact was observed, a loading (SL versus SU: p=0.0049) as well as an implant geometry effect (SL versus CL: p=0.01) was found, in favour of the SL condition. CONCLUSIONS: Well-controlled immediate implant loading accelerates tissue mineralization at the interface. Adequate bone stimulation via mechanical coupling may account for the larger bone response around the screw-type implant compared with the cylindrical implant.
Authors: Bettina M Willie; Xu Yang; Natalie H Kelly; Jane Han; Turya Nair; Timothy M Wright; Marjolein C H van der Meulen; Mathias P G Bostrom Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2010-05-22 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: Fabio Variola; John B Brunski; Giovanna Orsini; Paulo Tambasco de Oliveira; Rima Wazen; Antonio Nanci Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Paulo Esteves Pinto Faria; Bárbara Masalskas; Anders Heyden; Lars Rasmusson; Luiz Antonio Salata Journal: Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2016-09-16
Authors: Rima M Wazen; Jennifer A Currey; Hongqiang Guo; John B Brunski; Jill A Helms; Antonio Nanci Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2013-01-19 Impact factor: 8.947