Rodolfo B Anchieta1, Márcia V M Guimarães2, Marcelo Suzuki3, Nick Tovar4, Estevam A Bonfante5, Pablo Atria6, Paulo G Coelho7. 1. Assistant Professor, Centro Universitario do Norte Paulista (UNORP), São Jose do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil; Visiting Scholar, Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University, New York, NY; Department of Restorative Denstistry, Araçatuba, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), SP, Brazil. 2. Private Practice, Guaratingueta, SP, Brazil. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA. 4. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University, New York, NY. 5. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, University of São Paulo, Bauru School of Dentistry, Bauru, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: estevamab@gmail.com. 6. Research Professor, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. 7. Professor, Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University, New York, NY; Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, NYU Tandon School of Engineering; and Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This work evaluated the nanomechanical properties of bone surrounding submerged and immediately loaded implants after 3 years in vivo. It was hypothesized that the nanomechanical properties of bone would markedly increase in immediately and functionally loaded implants compared with submerged implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The second, third, and fourth right premolars and the first molar of 10 adult Doberman dogs were extracted. After 6 months, 4 implants were placed in 1 side of the mandible. The mesial implant received a cover screw and remained unloaded. The remaining 3 implants received fixed dental prostheses within 48 hours after surgery that remained in occlusal function for 3 years. After sacrifice, the bone was prepared for histologic and nanoindentation analysis. Nanoindentation was carried out under wet conditions on bone areas within the plateaus. Indentations (n = 30 per histologic section) were performed with a maximum load of 300 μN (loading rate, 60 μN per second) followed by a holding and unloading time of 10 and 2 seconds, respectively. Elastic modulus (E) and hardness (H) were computed in giga-pascals. The amount of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) also was evaluated. RESULTS: The E and H values for cortical bone regions were higher than those for trabecular bone regardless of load condition, but this difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). The E and H values were higher for loaded implants than for submerged implants (P < .05) for cortical and trabecular bone. For the same load condition, the E and H values for cortical and trabecular bone were not statistically different (P > .05). The loaded and submerged implants presented BIC values (mean ± standard deviation) of 57.4 ± 12.1% and 62 ± 7.5%, respectively (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The E and H values of bone surrounding dental implants, measured by nanoindentation, were higher for immediately loaded than for submerged implants.
PURPOSE: This work evaluated the nanomechanical properties of bone surrounding submerged and immediately loaded implants after 3 years in vivo. It was hypothesized that the nanomechanical properties of bone would markedly increase in immediately and functionally loaded implants compared with submerged implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The second, third, and fourth right premolars and the first molar of 10 adult Doberman dogs were extracted. After 6 months, 4 implants were placed in 1 side of the mandible. The mesial implant received a cover screw and remained unloaded. The remaining 3 implants received fixed dental prostheses within 48 hours after surgery that remained in occlusal function for 3 years. After sacrifice, the bone was prepared for histologic and nanoindentation analysis. Nanoindentation was carried out under wet conditions on bone areas within the plateaus. Indentations (n = 30 per histologic section) were performed with a maximum load of 300 μN (loading rate, 60 μN per second) followed by a holding and unloading time of 10 and 2 seconds, respectively. Elastic modulus (E) and hardness (H) were computed in giga-pascals. The amount of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) also was evaluated. RESULTS: The E and H values for cortical bone regions were higher than those for trabecular bone regardless of load condition, but this difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). The E and H values were higher for loaded implants than for submerged implants (P < .05) for cortical and trabecular bone. For the same load condition, the E and H values for cortical and trabecular bone were not statistically different (P > .05). The loaded and submerged implants presented BIC values (mean ± standard deviation) of 57.4 ± 12.1% and 62 ± 7.5%, respectively (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The E and H values of bone surrounding dental implants, measured by nanoindentation, were higher for immediately loaded than for submerged implants.