Literature DB >> 21365039

Bone mineral apposition rates at early implantation times around differently prepared titanium surfaces: a study in beagle dogs.

Paulo G Coelho1, Jose N Freire, Rodrigo Granato, Charles Marin, Estevam A Bonfante, Jose N Gil, Sung-Kiang Chuang, Marcelo Suzuki.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the bone mineral apposition rate (MAR) at the bone-implant interface region of alumina-blasted/acid-etched (AB/AE), plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite (PSHA), and nanometric-scale bioceramic-coated surfaces at early implantation times in a dog tibia model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants (n = 12 per group) with three different surfaces-AB/AE, PSHA, and a bioceramic coating in the 300- to 500-nm thickness range-were placed bilaterally along the proximal tibiae of six male beagles. Implants remained for 3 and 5 weeks in vivo. Ten and 2 days prior to euthanization, calcein green and oxytetracycline were administered for bone labeling. Following euthanization, the limbs were retrieved by sharp dissection and the implants and bone were processed nondecalcified into ~30-Μm-thick sections along the implant long axis. MAR was measured by the distance between bone labels over time at the interface region (to 0.5 mm from the implant surface) and at regions > 3 mm from the implant surface (remote site). A generalized linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was conducted with significance levels set at .05.
RESULTS: Irrespective of implant surface, the MAR at the interface region was significantly higher than the MAR at the remote site. Significant MAR differences in the interface region were observed between the different surfaces (PSHA > AB/AE > nano).
CONCLUSIONS: Bone kinetics during early healing stages were influenced by implant surface modifications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21365039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  6 in total

1.  Preparation and functional assessment of composite chitosan-nano-hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone regeneration.

Authors:  Benjamin T Reves; Jessica A Jennings; Joel D Bumgardner; Warren O Haggard
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2012-02-13

2.  Osteoinductivity Assessment of BMP-2 Loaded Composite Chitosan-Nano-Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds in a Rat Muscle Pouch.

Authors:  Benjamin T Reves; Jessica A Jennings; Joel D Bumgardner; Warren O Haggard
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2011-08-02       Impact factor: 3.623

3.  Histological and Nanomechanical Properties of a New Nanometric Hydroxiapatite Implant Surface. An In Vivo Study in Diabetic Rats.

Authors:  Paula G F P Oliveira; Paulo G Coelho; Edmara T P Bergamo; Lukasz Witek; Cristine A Borges; Fábio B Bezerra; Arthur B Novaes; Sergio L S Souza
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-13       Impact factor: 3.623

4.  Evaluation of Bone Response to a Nano HA Implant Surface on Sinus Lifting Procedures: Study in Rabbits.

Authors:  Sergio H L Martins; Uislen B Cadore; Arthur B Novaes; Michel R Messora; Bruna Ghiraldini; Fabio J B Bezerra; Daniele Botticelli; Sergio L S de Souza
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2022-08-21

5.  Surface characterization and in vivo evaluation of laser sintered and machined implants followed by resorbable-blasting media process: A study in sheep.

Authors:  Michelle Bowers; Daniel Yoo; Charles Marin; Luiz Gil; Nour Shabaka; Matt Goldstein; Malvin Janal; Nick Tovar; Ronaldo Hirata; Estevam Bonfante; Paulo Coelho
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2016-03-01

6.  A systematic review on the effect of inorganic surface coatings in large animal models and meta-analysis on tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite on periimplant bone formation.

Authors:  Jeanne-Marie Damerau; Susanne Bierbaum; Daniel Wiedemeier; Paula Korn; Ralf Smeets; Gregor Jenny; Johanna Nadalini; Bernd Stadlinger
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 3.405

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.