OBJECTIVE: To study the healing at fluoride-modified implants placed in wide circumferential defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six mongrel dogs were used. The mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted. Three months later four implants were placed in one side of the mandible of each dog. The control implants (MicroThread) had a TiOblast surface, while the test implants (OsseoSpeed) had a fluoride-modified surface. Two implants of each type were placed. The marginal 50% of the prepared canal was widened using step drills. Following installation a 1 mm wide gap occurred between the implant surface and the bone wall in the defect. All implants were submerged. The installation procedure was repeated in the opposite side of the mandible 4 weeks after the first implant surgery. Two weeks later the animals were euthanized and block biopsies containing the implant and surrounding tissues were prepared for histological analysis. RESULTS: The histological analysis revealed that a significantly larger area of osseointegration was established within the defect at fluoride-modified implants than at implants with a TiOblast surface after 6 weeks of healing. Further, the degree of bone-to-implant contact within the defect area was larger at fluoride-modified implants than at the TiOblast implants. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that the fluoride-modified implant surface promotes bone formation and osseointegration.
OBJECTIVE: To study the healing at fluoride-modified implants placed in wide circumferential defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six mongrel dogs were used. The mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted. Three months later four implants were placed in one side of the mandible of each dog. The control implants (MicroThread) had a TiOblast surface, while the test implants (OsseoSpeed) had a fluoride-modified surface. Two implants of each type were placed. The marginal 50% of the prepared canal was widened using step drills. Following installation a 1 mm wide gap occurred between the implant surface and the bone wall in the defect. All implants were submerged. The installation procedure was repeated in the opposite side of the mandible 4 weeks after the first implant surgery. Two weeks later the animals were euthanized and block biopsies containing the implant and surrounding tissues were prepared for histological analysis. RESULTS: The histological analysis revealed that a significantly larger area of osseointegration was established within the defect at fluoride-modified implants than at implants with a TiOblast surface after 6 weeks of healing. Further, the degree of bone-to-implant contact within the defect area was larger at fluoride-modified implants than at the TiOblast implants. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that the fluoride-modified implant surface promotes bone formation and osseointegration.
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: Jun Yuan Li; Li Wu Zheng; Li Ma; Dora Lai Wan Kwong; Lim Kwong Cheung; Edmond Ho Nang Pow Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 3.411