Literature DB >> 22492019

Bone apposition to a titanium-zirconium alloy implant, as compared to two other titanium-containing implants.

N Saulacic1, D D Bosshardt, M M Bornstein, S Berner, D Buser.   

Abstract

Implants made of commercially pure titanium (cpTi) are widely and successfully used in dentistry. For certain indications, diameter-reduced Ti alloy implants with improved mechanical strength are highly desirable. The aim was to compare the osseointegration of titanium-zirconium (TiZr) and cpTi implants with a modified sandblasted and acid-etched (SLActive) surface and with a Ti6Al4V alloy that was sand-blasted and acid-washed. Cylindrical implants with two, 0.75 mm deep, circumferential grooves were placed in the maxilla of miniature pigs and allowed to heal for 1, 2, 4 and 8 weeks. Undecalcified toluidine blue-stained ground sections were produced. Surface topography, area fraction of tissue components, and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) were determined. All materials showed significantly different surface roughness parameters. The amount of new bone within the implant grooves increased over time, without significant differences between materials. However, BIC values were significantly related to the implant material and the healing period. For TiZr and cpTi implants, the BIC increased over time, reaching values of 59.38 % and 76.15 % after 2 weeks, and 74.50 % and 84.67 % after 8 weeks, respectively. In contrast, the BIC for Ti6Al4V implants peaked with 42.29 % after 2 weeks followed by a decline to 28.60 % at 8 weeks. Significantly more surface was covered by multinucleated giant cells on Ti6Al4V implants after 4 and 8 weeks. In conclusion, TiZr and cpTi implants showed faster osseointegration than Ti6Al4V implants. Both chemistry and surface topography might have influenced the results. The use of diameter-reduced TiZr implants in more challenging clinical situations warrants further documentation in long-term clinical studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22492019     DOI: 10.22203/ecm.v023a21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Cell Mater        ISSN: 1473-2262            Impact factor:   3.942


  10 in total

Review 1.  Is There a Better Biomaterial for Dental Implants than Titanium?-A Review and Meta-Study Analysis.

Authors:  Håvard J Haugen; Hongyu Chen
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2022-04-20

2.  Mechanical Characterisation and Biomechanical and Biological Behaviours of Ti-Zr Binary-Alloy Dental Implants.

Authors:  Aritza Brizuela-Velasco; Esteban Pérez-Pevida; Antonio Jiménez-Garrudo; Francisco Javier Gil-Mur; José María Manero; Miquel Punset-Fuste; David Chávarri-Prado; Markel Diéguez-Pereira; Francesca Monticelli
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Performance of a New Al₂O₃/Ce-TZP Ceramic Nanocomposite Dental Implant: A Pilot Study in Dogs.

Authors:  Roberto Lopez-Píriz; Adolfo Fernández; Lidia Goyos-Ball; Sergio Rivera; Luis A Díaz; Manuel Fernández-Domínguez; Catuxa Prado; José S Moya; Ramón Torrecillas
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2017-06-03       Impact factor: 3.623

4.  Characterization of a Macro- and Micro-Textured Titanium Grade 5 Alloy Surface Obtained by Etching Only without Sandblasting.

Authors:  Serge Szmukler-Moncler; Cornelio Blus; David Morales Schwarz; Germano Orrù
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.623

5.  Cytocompatibility of Ti-xZr alloys as dental implant materials.

Authors:  Pinghua Ou; Cong Hao; Jue Liu; Rengui He; Baoqi Wang; Jianming Ruan
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 3.896

6.  Is titanium-zirconium alloy a better alternative to pure titanium for oral implant? Composition, mechanical properties, and microstructure analysis.

Authors:  Ajay Sharma; John N Waddell; Kai C Li; Lavanya A Sharma; David J Prior; Warwick J Duncan
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2020-08-29

7.  The role of autophagy in the process of osseointegration around titanium implants with micro-nano topography promoted by osteoimmunity.

Authors:  Ting Zhang; Mengyang Jiang; Xiaojie Yin; Peng Yao; Huiqiang Sun
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-09-16       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  The minipig intraoral dental implant model: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Marta Liliana Musskopf; Amanda Finger Stadler; Ulf Me Wikesjö; Cristiano Susin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Zirconium, calcium, and strontium contents in magnesium based biodegradable alloys modulate the efficiency of implant-induced osseointegration.

Authors:  Dolly Mushahary; Ragamouni Sravanthi; Yuncang Li; Mahesh J Kumar; Nemani Harishankar; Peter D Hodgson; Cuie Wen; Gopal Pande
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2013-08-09

10.  Osteoblast integration of dental implant materials after challenge by sub-gingival pathogens: a co-culture study in vitro.

Authors:  Bingran Zhao; Henny C van der Mei; Minie Rustema-Abbing; Henk J Busscher; Yijin Ren
Journal:  Int J Oral Sci       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 6.344

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.