A M Ballo1, I Cekic-Nagas2, G Ergun2, L Lassila3, A Palmquist4, P Borchardt5, J Lausmaa5, P Thomsen4, P K Vallittu3, T O Närhi6. 1. Department of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Dental Implant and Osseointegration Research Chair, College of Dentistry at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: ahmed.ballo@dentistry.ubc.ca. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of Biomaterials Science and Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre - TCBC, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 4. Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; BIOMATCELL VINN Excellence Center of Biomaterials and Cell Therapy, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. BIOMATCELL VINN Excellence Center of Biomaterials and Cell Therapy, Gothenburg, Sweden; SP Technical Research Institute Sweden, Borås, Sweden. 6. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Clinic of Oral Diseases, Turku University Central Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bone tissue response to fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) in comparison with titanium (Ti) implants after 12 weeks of implantation in cancellous bone using histomorphometric and ultrastructural analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty grit-blasted cylindrical FRC implants with BisGMA-TEGDMA polymer matrix were fabricated and divided into three groups: (1) 60s light-cured FRC (FRC-L group), (2) 24h polymerized FRC (FRC group), and (3) bioactive glass FRC (FRC-BAG group). Titanium implants were used as a control group. The surface analyses were performed with scanning electron microscopy and 3D SEM. The bone-implant contact (BIC) and bone area (BA) were determined using histomorphometry and SEM. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was performed on Focused Ion Beam prepared samples of the intact bone-implant interface. RESULTS: The FRC, FRC-BAG and Ti implants were integrated into host bone. In contrast, FRC-L implants had a consistent fibrous capsule around the circumference of the entire implant separating the implant from direct bone contact. The highest values of BIC were obtained with FRC-BAG (58±11%) and Ti implants (54±13%), followed by FRC implants (48±10%), but no significant differences in BIC or BA were observed (p=0.07, p=0.06, respectively). TEM images showed a direct contact between nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite of bone and both FRC and FRC-BAG surfaces. CONCLUSION: Fiber-reinforced composite implants are capable of establishing a close bone contact comparable with the osseointegration of titanium implants having similar surface roughness.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bone tissue response to fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) in comparison with titanium (Ti) implants after 12 weeks of implantation in cancellous bone using histomorphometric and ultrastructural analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty grit-blasted cylindrical FRC implants with BisGMA-TEGDMA polymer matrix were fabricated and divided into three groups: (1) 60s light-cured FRC (FRC-L group), (2) 24h polymerized FRC (FRC group), and (3) bioactive glass FRC (FRC-BAG group). Titanium implants were used as a control group. The surface analyses were performed with scanning electron microscopy and 3D SEM. The bone-implant contact (BIC) and bone area (BA) were determined using histomorphometry and SEM. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was performed on Focused Ion Beam prepared samples of the intact bone-implant interface. RESULTS: The FRC, FRC-BAG and Ti implants were integrated into host bone. In contrast, FRC-L implants had a consistent fibrous capsule around the circumference of the entire implant separating the implant from direct bone contact. The highest values of BIC were obtained with FRC-BAG (58±11%) and Ti implants (54±13%), followed by FRC implants (48±10%), but no significant differences in BIC or BA were observed (p=0.07, p=0.06, respectively). TEM images showed a direct contact between nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite of bone and both FRC and FRC-BAG surfaces. CONCLUSION: Fiber-reinforced composite implants are capable of establishing a close bone contact comparable with the osseointegration of titanium implants having similar surface roughness.