Francesco Guido Mangano1, Jefferson Trabach Pires, Jamil Awad Shibli, Eitan Mijiritsky, Giovanna Iezzi, Adriano Piattelli, Carlo Mangano. 1. *Researcher, Department of Surgical and Morphological Science, Dental School, University of Varese, Varese, Italy. †Researcher, Dental Research Division, Guarulhos University, Sao Paulo, Brazil. ‡Professor, Head of Oral Implantology Clinic, Dental Research Division, Guarulhos University, Sao Paulo, Brazil. §Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, University of Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel. ¶Researcher, Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy. ‖Full Professor, Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy. #Professor, Department of Dental Sciences, University Vita Salute S. Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the early bone response to implants with dual acid-etched (DAE) and machined (MA) surface, when placed in the posterior human maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients received 2 implants in the posterior maxilla: 1 DAE and 1 MA. After 2 months, the implants were retrieved for histologic/histomorphometric evaluation. The bone-to-implant contact (BIC%), bone density in the threaded area (BDTA%), and the bone density (BD%) were calculated. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to evaluate differences (BIC%, BDTA%, and BD%) between the surfaces. RESULTS: In the MA implants, a mean (±SD) BIC%, BDTA%, and BD% of 21.76 (±12.79), 28.58 (±16.91), and 21.54 (±11.67), respectively, was reported. In the DAE implants, a mean (±SD) BIC%, BDTA%, and BD% of 37.49 (±29.51), 30.59 (±21.78), and 31.60 (±18.06), respectively, was reported. Although the mean BIC% of DAE implants value was almost double than that of MA implants, no significant differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to BIC% (P = 0.198) and with regard to BDTA% (P = 0.778) and BD% (P = 0.124). CONCLUSIONS: The DAE surface increased the periimplant endosseous healing properties in the native bone of the posterior maxilla.
PURPOSE: To compare the early bone response to implants with dual acid-etched (DAE) and machined (MA) surface, when placed in the posterior human maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients received 2 implants in the posterior maxilla: 1 DAE and 1 MA. After 2 months, the implants were retrieved for histologic/histomorphometric evaluation. The bone-to-implant contact (BIC%), bone density in the threaded area (BDTA%), and the bone density (BD%) were calculated. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to evaluate differences (BIC%, BDTA%, and BD%) between the surfaces. RESULTS: In the MA implants, a mean (±SD) BIC%, BDTA%, and BD% of 21.76 (±12.79), 28.58 (±16.91), and 21.54 (±11.67), respectively, was reported. In the DAE implants, a mean (±SD) BIC%, BDTA%, and BD% of 37.49 (±29.51), 30.59 (±21.78), and 31.60 (±18.06), respectively, was reported. Although the mean BIC% of DAE implants value was almost double than that of MA implants, no significant differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to BIC% (P = 0.198) and with regard to BDTA% (P = 0.778) and BD% (P = 0.124). CONCLUSIONS: The DAE surface increased the periimplant endosseous healing properties in the native bone of the posterior maxilla.
Authors: Miltiadis E Mitsias; Konstantinos D Siormpas; Georgios A Kotsakis; Scott D Ganz; Carlo Mangano; Giovanna Iezzi Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Carlo Mangano; Jamil Awad Shibli; Jefferson Trabach Pires; Giuseppe Luongo; Adriano Piattelli; Giovanna Iezzi Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Eugenio Velasco-Ortega; Alvaro Jimenez-Guerra; Loreto Monsalve-Guil; Ivan Ortiz-Garcia; Ana I Nicolas-Silvente; Juan J Segura-Egea; Jose Lopez-Lopez Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 3.623