Literature DB >> 21561476

Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans.

Niklaus P Lang1, Giovanni E Salvi, Guy Huynh-Ba, Saso Ivanovski, Nikolaos Donos, Dieter D Bosshardt.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate and degree of osseointegration at chemically modified moderately rough, hydrophilic (SLActive) and moderately rough, hydrophobic (SLA) implant surfaces during early phases of healing in a human model.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The devices used for this study of early healing were 4 mm long and 2.8 mm in diameter and had either an SLActive chemically modified or a moderately rough SLA surface configuration. These devices were surgically installed into the retro-molar area of 49 human volunteers and retrieved after 7, 14, 28 and 42 days of submerged healing. A 5.2-mm-long specially designed trephine with a 4.9 mm inside diameter, allowing the circumferential sampling of 1 mm tissue together with the device was applied. Histologic ground sections were prepared and histometric analyses of the tissue components (i.e. old bone, new bone, bone debris and soft tissue) in contact with the device surfaces were performed.
RESULTS: All device sites healed uneventfully. All device surfaces were partially coated with bone debris. A significant fraction of this bone matrix coating became increasingly covered with newly formed bone. The process of new bone formation started already during the first week in the trabecular regions and increased gradually up to 42 days. The percentage of direct contact between newly formed bone and the device (bone-to-implant contact) after 2 and 4 weeks was more pronounced adjacent to the SLActive than to the SLA surface (14.8% vs. 12.2% and 48.3% vs. 32.4%, respectively), but after 42 days, these differences were no longer evident (61.6% vs. 61.5%).
CONCLUSION: While healing showed similar characteristics with bone resorptive and appositional events for both SLActive and SLA surfaces between 7 and 42 days, the degree of osseointegration after 2 and 4 weeks was superior for the SLActive compared with the SLA surface.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21561476     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  58 in total

1.  Osseointegration of titanium implants with SLAffinity treatment: a histological and biomechanical study in miniature pigs.

Authors:  Keng-Liang Ou; Heng-Jui Hsu; Tzu-Sen Yang; Yun-Ho Lin; Chin-Sung Chen; Pei-Wen Peng
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Comparison between inflammation-related markers in peri-implant crevicular fluid and clinical parameters during osseointegration in edentulous jaws.

Authors:  Amália M Bielemann; Raissa M Marcello-Machado; Fábio Renato Manzolli Leite; Frederico Canato Martinho; Otacílio Luiz Chagas-Júnior; Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury; Fernanda Faot
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 3.  Multi-Scale Surface Treatments of Titanium Implants for Rapid Osseointegration: A Review.

Authors:  Qingge Wang; Peng Zhou; Shifeng Liu; Shokouh Attarilar; Robin Lok-Wang Ma; Yinsheng Zhong; Liqiang Wang
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 5.076

4.  Tailoring biomaterial surface properties to modulate host-implant interactions: implication in cardiovascular and bone therapy.

Authors:  Settimio Pacelli; Vijayan Manoharan; Anna Desalvo; Nikita Lomis; Kartikeya Singh Jodha; Satya Prakash; Arghya Paul
Journal:  J Mater Chem B       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 6.331

5.  The interactions of dendritic cells with osteoblasts on titanium surfaces: an in vitro investigation.

Authors:  Yang Yang; Xuzhu Wang; Richard J Miron; Xiaoxin Zhang
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-03-09       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Unravelling the effect of macro and microscopic design of dental implants on osseointegration: a randomised clinical study in minipigs.

Authors:  J V Ríos-Santos; A M Menjívar-Galán; M Herrero-Climent; B Ríos-Carrasco; A Fernández-Palacín; R A Perez; F J Gil
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 3.896

7.  Enhanced Osteoblast Response to Porosity and Resolution of Additively Manufactured Ti-6Al-4V Constructs with Trabeculae-Inspired Porosity.

Authors:  Alice Cheng; Aiza Humayun; Barbara D Boyan; Zvi Schwartz
Journal:  3D Print Addit Manuf       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 5.449

8.  Regulation of osteoclasts by osteoblast lineage cells depends on titanium implant surface properties.

Authors:  Ethan M Lotz; Michael B Berger; Zvi Schwartz; Barbara D Boyan
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2017-12-30       Impact factor: 8.947

9.  Wound models for periodontal and bone regeneration: the role of biologic research.

Authors:  Anton Sculean; Iain L C Chapple; William V Giannobile
Journal:  Periodontol 2000       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 7.589

10.  Bone tissue response to experimental zirconia implants.

Authors:  Ilja Mihatovic; Vladimir Golubovic; Jürgen Becker; Frank Schwarz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 3.573

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.