L M Bins-Ely1, E B Cordero1, J C M Souza1, W Teughels2, C A M Benfatti1, R S Magini1. 1. Center for Research on Dental Implants (CEPID), School of Dentistry (ODT), Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil. 2. Department of Oral Health Sciences and University Hospitals Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present in vivo study was to measure the bone implant contact area after electrical stimulation of dental implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety titanium dental implants (6 mm × 11.5 mm) with a smooth surface were placed in six male Beagle dogs and then the implant-bone interfaces was assessed by histological analyses after 7 and 15 d. The 12-mo-old dogs, with a weight of 15 kg, were randomly divided into two groups based on the duration of bone healing: 7 and 15 d. Also, implants were divided into three groups based on electrical stimulation: group A, 10 μA; group B, 20 μA; and group C, control group. The electrical current was applied by an electrical device coupled to the implant connection. RESULTS: After 7 d of electrical stimulation, no statistical differences in bone-implant interface contact area were observed. However, a significantly higher bone-implant interface contact area was recorded for group B than for groups A and C (p < 0.01) after 15 d. No statistical difference was observed between groups A and C (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The electrical stimulation of dental implants can generate a larger area of bone-implant interface contact as a result of bone formation. Factors such as different electrical current intensity and duration should be studied in further work to clarify the potential of this method.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present in vivo study was to measure the bone implant contact area after electrical stimulation of dental implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety titanium dental implants (6 mm × 11.5 mm) with a smooth surface were placed in six male Beagle dogs and then the implant-bone interfaces was assessed by histological analyses after 7 and 15 d. The 12-mo-old dogs, with a weight of 15 kg, were randomly divided into two groups based on the duration of bone healing: 7 and 15 d. Also, implants were divided into three groups based on electrical stimulation: group A, 10 μA; group B, 20 μA; and group C, control group. The electrical current was applied by an electrical device coupled to the implant connection. RESULTS: After 7 d of electrical stimulation, no statistical differences in bone-implant interface contact area were observed. However, a significantly higher bone-implant interface contact area was recorded for group B than for groups A and C (p < 0.01) after 15 d. No statistical difference was observed between groups A and C (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The electrical stimulation of dental implants can generate a larger area of bone-implant interface contact as a result of bone formation. Factors such as different electrical current intensity and duration should be studied in further work to clarify the potential of this method.
Authors: Mit Balvantray Bhavsar; Zhihua Han; Thomas DeCoster; Liudmila Leppik; Karla Mychellyne Costa Oliveira; John H Barker Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 3.693