Sang-Woon Lee1, Byung-Dong Hahn2, Tae Yeon Kang3, Myung-Jin Lee3, Je-Yong Choi4, Min-Keun Kim5, Seong-Gon Kim6. 1. Fellow, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Korea. 2. Researcher, Functional Materials Division, Korea Institute of Materials Science, Changwon, Korea. 3. Researcher, Gangneung Center, Korea Basic Science Institute, Gangneung, Korea. 4. Professor, School of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, WCU Project, Skeletal Diseases Genome Research Center, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Korea. 6. Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Korea. Electronic address: epker@chol.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare peri-implant bone formation among uncoated (UC), hydroxyapatite (HA), collagen plus HA (CH), and collagen, HA, plus bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) implant groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants in the UC group had acid-etched surfaces. The surface coating was applied using the aerosol deposition method. The coated surfaces were examined by scanning electron microscopy, x-ray diffraction (XRD), and Fourier-transformed infrared absorption analysis. Subsequently, 6 implants from each group (total, 24 implants) were installed in the tibias of rabbits. The animals were sacrificed at 6 weeks after implant installation. Peri-implant bone formation and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) were measured in histologic sections. Significant differences among groups were evaluated using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Based on the measured XRD patterns, there was a characteristic HA phase (International Centre for Diffraction Data [ICDD], 086-0740) coated on the titanium (ICDD, 089-3725). Subsequent coating processes for collagen and BMP-2 did not display additional diffraction peaks, but maintained the diffraction patterns of the HA-coated titanium. The presence of collagen was verified by infrared absorption analysis. When comparing these modifications with UC surfaces, only the CH coating displayed significantly greater peri-implant bone formation and BIC (P = .003 and P < .001, respectively). Adding BMP-2 to the implant surface did not produce any advantage compared with the CH coating. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the CH group displayed significantly greater new bone formation and BIC than the other groups. There was no significant difference among the other groups.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare peri-implant bone formation among uncoated (UC), hydroxyapatite (HA), collagen plus HA (CH), and collagen, HA, plus bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) implant groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants in the UC group had acid-etched surfaces. The surface coating was applied using the aerosol deposition method. The coated surfaces were examined by scanning electron microscopy, x-ray diffraction (XRD), and Fourier-transformed infrared absorption analysis. Subsequently, 6 implants from each group (total, 24 implants) were installed in the tibias of rabbits. The animals were sacrificed at 6 weeks after implant installation. Peri-implant bone formation and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) were measured in histologic sections. Significant differences among groups were evaluated using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Based on the measured XRD patterns, there was a characteristic HA phase (International Centre for Diffraction Data [ICDD], 086-0740) coated on the titanium (ICDD, 089-3725). Subsequent coating processes for collagen and BMP-2 did not display additional diffraction peaks, but maintained the diffraction patterns of the HA-coated titanium. The presence of collagen was verified by infrared absorption analysis. When comparing these modifications with UC surfaces, only the CH coating displayed significantly greater peri-implant bone formation and BIC (P = .003 and P < .001, respectively). Adding BMP-2 to the implant surface did not produce any advantage compared with the CH coating. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the CH group displayed significantly greater new bone formation and BIC than the other groups. There was no significant difference among the other groups.
Authors: Luciano Mayer; Fernando Vacilotto Gomes; Marília Gerhardt de Oliveira; João Feliz Duarte de Moraes; Lennart Carlsson Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Tomáš Suchý; Lucie Vištejnová; Monika Šupová; Pavel Klein; Martin Bartoš; Yaroslav Kolinko; Tereza Blassová; Zbyněk Tonar; Marek Pokorný; Zbyněk Sucharda; Margit Žaloudková; František Denk; Rastislav Ballay; Štefan Juhás; Jana Juhásová; Eva Klapková; Lukáš Horný; Radek Sedláček; Tomáš Grus; Zdeněk Čejka; Zdeněk Čejka; Kateřina Chudějová; Jaroslav Hrabák Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2021-05-10