Literature DB >> 20561471

Biomechanical evaluation of endosseous implants at early implantation times: a study in dogs.

Paulo G Coelho1, Rodrigo Granato, Charles Marin, Estevam A Bonfante, Jose N O Freire, Malvin N Janal, Jose N Gil, Marcelo Suzuki.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study tested the null hypothesis that differences in surgical instrumentation, macrogeometry, and surface treatment imposed by different implant systems do not affect early biomechanical fixation in a canine mandible model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The lower premolars of 6 beagle dogs were extracted and the ridges allowed to heal for 8 weeks. Thirty-six (n = 12 each group) implants were bilaterally placed, remaining for 1 and 3 weeks in vivo. The implant groups were as follows: group 1, Ti-6Al-4V with a dual acid-etched surface with nanometer scale discrete crystalline deposition (Nanotite; Certain Biomet-3i, West Palm Springs, FL); group 2, Ti-6Al-4V with a titanium oxide-blasted fluoride-modified surface chemistry (Osseospeed 4.0 S; Astra Tech, Mölndal, Sweden); group 3: Ti-6Al-4V with a bioceramic microblasted surface (Ossean; Intra-Lock International, Boca Raton, FL). Following euthanasia, implants were torqued to interface failure and histologically evaluated. General linear modeling (ANOVA) at 95% level of significance was performed.
RESULTS: Histology showed that interfacial bone remodeling and initial woven bone formation were observed around all implant groups at 1 and 3 weeks. Torque values were significantly affected by time in vivo, implant group, and their interaction (P = .016, P < .001, and P = .001, respectively). Regarding torque values, group 3, group 2, and group 1 ranked highest, intermediate, and lowest, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Early biomechanical fixation at 1 and 3 weeks was affected by surgical instrumentation, macrogeometry, and surface treatment present for one of the implant systems tested. The null hypothesis was rejected. Copyright 2010 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20561471     DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.02.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  4 in total

Review 1.  Biomechanical behaviours of the bone-implant interface: a review.

Authors:  Xing Gao; Manon Fraulob; Guillaume Haïat
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 4.118

2.  Elastography of the bone-implant interface.

Authors:  Yoann Hériveaux; Vu-Hieu Nguyen; Didier Geiger; Guillaume Haïat
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Immediate restoration of fixed full-arch prostheses placed on implants in both fresh and healed sockets using the flat one-bridge technique: a 7-year retrospective study.

Authors:  Simone Marconcini; Enrica Giammarinaro; Ugo Covani; Andrea Mascolo; Guerino Caso; Marco Del Corso
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 2.757

4.  Biomechanical and histological evaluation of four different titanium implant surface modifications: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia.

Authors:  José Luis Calvo-Guirado; Marta Satorres; Bruno Negri; Piedad Ramirez-Fernandez; Jose Eduardo Maté-Sánchez de Val; Jose Eduardo Maté-Sánchez; Rafael Delgado-Ruiz; Gerardo Gomez-Moreno; Marcus Abboud; Georgios E Romanos
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 3.573

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.