OBJECTIVES: To compare the bone tissue response to surface-modified zirconia (ZrO2 ) and titanium implants. METHODS: Cylindrical low-pressure injection moulded zirconia (ZrO2 ) implants were produced with an acid-etched surface. Titanium implants with identical shape, sandblasted and acid-etched surface (SLA) served as controls. Eighteen adult miniature pigs received both implant types in the maxilla 6 months after extraction of the canines and incisors. The animals were euthanized after 4, 8 and 12 weeks and 16 zirconia and 18 titanium implants with the surrounding tissue were retrieved, embedded in methylmethacrylate and stained with Giemsa-Eosin. The stained sections were digitized and histomorphometrically analysed with regard to peri-implant bone density (bone volume/total volume) and bone-implant contact (BIC) ratio. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney' U-test. RESULTS: Histomorphometrical analysis showed direct osseous integration for both materials. ZrO2 implants revealed mean peri-implant bone density values of 60.4% (SD ± 9.9) at 4 weeks, 65.4% (SD ± 13.8) at 8 weeks, and 63.3% (SD ± 21.5) at 12 weeks after implantation, whereas Ti-SLA implants demonstrated mean values of 61.1% (SD ± 6.2), 63.6% (SD ± 6.8) and 68.2% (SD ± 5.8) at corresponding time intervals. Concerning the BIC ratio, the mean values for ZrO(2) ranged between 67.1% (SD ± 21.1) and 70% (SD ± 14.5) and for Ti-SLA between 64.7% (SD ± 9.4) and 83.7% (SD ± 10.3). For the two parameters investigated, no significant differences between both types of implants could be detected at any time point. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that there was no difference in osseointegration between ZrO2 implants and Ti-SLA controls regarding peri-implant bone density and BIC ratio.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the bone tissue response to surface-modified zirconia (ZrO2 ) and titanium implants. METHODS: Cylindrical low-pressure injection moulded zirconia (ZrO2 ) implants were produced with an acid-etched surface. Titanium implants with identical shape, sandblasted and acid-etched surface (SLA) served as controls. Eighteen adult miniature pigs received both implant types in the maxilla 6 months after extraction of the canines and incisors. The animals were euthanized after 4, 8 and 12 weeks and 16 zirconia and 18 titanium implants with the surrounding tissue were retrieved, embedded in methylmethacrylate and stained with Giemsa-Eosin. The stained sections were digitized and histomorphometrically analysed with regard to peri-implant bone density (bone volume/total volume) and bone-implant contact (BIC) ratio. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney' U-test. RESULTS: Histomorphometrical analysis showed direct osseous integration for both materials. ZrO2 implants revealed mean peri-implant bone density values of 60.4% (SD ± 9.9) at 4 weeks, 65.4% (SD ± 13.8) at 8 weeks, and 63.3% (SD ± 21.5) at 12 weeks after implantation, whereas Ti-SLA implants demonstrated mean values of 61.1% (SD ± 6.2), 63.6% (SD ± 6.8) and 68.2% (SD ± 5.8) at corresponding time intervals. Concerning the BIC ratio, the mean values for ZrO(2) ranged between 67.1% (SD ± 21.1) and 70% (SD ± 14.5) and for Ti-SLA between 64.7% (SD ± 9.4) and 83.7% (SD ± 10.3). For the two parameters investigated, no significant differences between both types of implants could be detected at any time point. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that there was no difference in osseointegration between ZrO2 implants and Ti-SLA controls regarding peri-implant bone density and BIC ratio.
Authors: Fernanda H Schünemann; María E Galárraga-Vinueza; Ricardo Magini; Márcio Fredel; Filipe Silva; Júlio C M Souza; Yu Zhang; Bruno Henriques Journal: Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 7.328
Authors: Alice Frosch; Sebastian Krohn; Gottfried Buchhorn; Wolfgang Lehmann; Karl-Heinz Frosch; László Füzesi; Stephan Frosch Journal: Histol Histopathol Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Welson Cunha; Oscar Carvalho; Bruno Henriques; Filipe S Silva; Mutlu Özcan; Júlio C M Souza Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: R Arun Jaikumar; Suma Karthigeyan; T R Ramesh Bhat; Madhulika Naidu; G R Praveen Raj; Senthil Natarajan Journal: J Pharm Bioallied Sci Date: 2021-06-05
Authors: Mariano Herrero-Climent; Manuel M Romero Ruizª; Pedro Lázaro Calvo; José Vicente Ríos Santos; Roman A Perez; Francisco Javier Gil Mur Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Stephan Frosch; Gottfried Buchhorn; Sebastian Krohn; Wolfgang Lehmann; Karl-Heinz Frosch; László Füzesi; Alice Frosch Journal: Histol Histopathol Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Sutton E Wheelis; Claudia C Biguetti; Shruti Natarajan; Alexandra Arteaga; Jihad El Allami; Bhuvana Lakkasettar Chandrashekar; Gustavo P Garlet; Danieli C Rodrigues Journal: ACS Biomater Sci Eng Date: 2021-02-24