S Mistry1, D Kundu, S Datta, D Basu. 1. Department of Periodontics, Dr R Ahmed Dental College, Hospital, Kolkata, India. dr.surajitmistry@rediffmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current trends in clinical dental implant therapy include modification of titanium surfaces for the purpose of improving osseointegration by different additive (bioactive coatings) and subtractive processes (acid etching, grit-blasting). The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the behaviour of hydroxyapatite and the newly developed bioactive glass coated implants (62 implants) in osseous tissue following implantation in 31 patients. METHODS: Bioactive glass and hydroxyapatite was suitably coated on titanium alloy. Hydroxyapatite coating was applied on the implant surface by air microplasma spray technique and bioactive glass coating was applied by vitreous enamelling technique. The outcome was assessed up to 12 months after prosthetic loading using different clinical and radiological parameters. RESULTS: Hydroxyapatite and bioactive glass coating materials were non-toxic and biocompatible. Overall results showed that bioactive glass coated implants were as equally successful as hydroxyapatite in achieving osseointegration and supporting final restorations. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed bioactive glass is a good alternative coating material for dental implants.
BACKGROUND: Current trends in clinical dental implant therapy include modification of titanium surfaces for the purpose of improving osseointegration by different additive (bioactive coatings) and subtractive processes (acid etching, grit-blasting). The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the behaviour of hydroxyapatite and the newly developed bioactive glass coated implants (62 implants) in osseous tissue following implantation in 31 patients. METHODS: Bioactive glass and hydroxyapatite was suitably coated on titanium alloy. Hydroxyapatite coating was applied on the implant surface by air microplasma spray technique and bioactive glass coating was applied by vitreous enamelling technique. The outcome was assessed up to 12 months after prosthetic loading using different clinical and radiological parameters. RESULTS:Hydroxyapatite and bioactive glass coating materials were non-toxic and biocompatible. Overall results showed that bioactive glass coated implants were as equally successful as hydroxyapatite in achieving osseointegration and supporting final restorations. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed bioactive glass is a good alternative coating material for dental implants.
Authors: Alex E Pozhitkov; Diane Daubert; Ashley Brochwicz Donimirski; Douglas Goodgion; Mikhail Y Vagin; Brian G Leroux; Colby M Hunter; Thomas F Flemmig; Peter A Noble; James D Bryers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jonathan Hatton; Graham Roy Davis; Abdel-Hamid I Mourad; Nizamudeen Cherupurakal; Robert G Hill; Sahar Mohsin Journal: J Funct Biomater Date: 2019-03-04