OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration of two different types of surfaces, smooth and roughened surface implants nanocoated with calcium phosphate (CAP) around different bone environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five male mongrel dogs were used in this study. The premolars and molars were extracted on both sides of the mandible. Eight weeks after extraction, implants were submerged on both sides of the mandible. On the left, CAP nanocoated roughened surface (RCAP) implants were installed whereas, the CAP nanocoated smooth surface (SCAP) implants were installed on the right side. The control group had no defect, on the other hand, three-wall intrabony defects were surgically created adjacent to the implant in the experimental group. The dogs were sacrificed after 12 weeks. RESULTS: Histological and histomorphometrical analysis were performed with the specimen. The SCAP and RCAP implants showed good osseointegration with no statistical significance in the control group. Histologically, the SCAP group showed little resolution of the defect compared with the RCAP group. In the experimental groups, there was a significant difference in defect fill between SCAP and RCAP. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of our study, it can be concluded that SCAP and RCAP implants show no difference in sufficient bone area whereas, CAP nanocoating on roughened implant surface may enhance osseointegration in deficient bone environment.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration of two different types of surfaces, smooth and roughened surface implants nanocoated with calcium phosphate (CAP) around different bone environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five male mongrel dogs were used in this study. The premolars and molars were extracted on both sides of the mandible. Eight weeks after extraction, implants were submerged on both sides of the mandible. On the left, CAP nanocoated roughened surface (RCAP) implants were installed whereas, the CAP nanocoated smooth surface (SCAP) implants were installed on the right side. The control group had no defect, on the other hand, three-wall intrabony defects were surgically created adjacent to the implant in the experimental group. The dogs were sacrificed after 12 weeks. RESULTS: Histological and histomorphometrical analysis were performed with the specimen. The SCAP and RCAP implants showed good osseointegration with no statistical significance in the control group. Histologically, the SCAP group showed little resolution of the defect compared with the RCAP group. In the experimental groups, there was a significant difference in defect fill between SCAP and RCAP. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of our study, it can be concluded that SCAP and RCAP implants show no difference in sufficient bone area whereas, CAP nanocoating on roughened implant surface may enhance osseointegration in deficient bone environment.
Authors: Elena G Zemtsova; Natalia M Yudintceva; Pavel E Morozov; Ruslan Z Valiev; Vladimir M Smirnov; Maxim A Shevtsov Journal: Int J Nanomedicine Date: 2018-04-11