Herbert Deppe1, Carolina Wolff2, Florian Bauer3, Ricarda Ruthenberg3, Anton Sculean4, Thomas Mücke5. 1. Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. Herbert.deppe@tum.de. 2. Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 4. Department of Periodontology, University of Berne, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010, Berne, Switzerland. 5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Plastic Surgery, St. Josefshospital, Uerdingen, Krefeld, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Primary healing of dental implants is influenced by their surface morphology. However, little is known about any alterations in morphology during their insertion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the surface morphology of four different implant systems, following their insertion in porcine jaw bones. METHODS: Four fresh porcine mandible specimens were used. Six new implants of four systems (Ankylos® 4.5 × 14 mm, Frialit Synchro® 4.5 × 15 mm, NobelReplace ® Tapered Groovy RP 4.3 × 13 mm, Straumann SLA® Bone Level 3.3 × 14 mm) were inserted, whereas one implant of each system served as a control. After their removal, implants were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath. All 28 implants were examined quantitatively by 3D confocal microscopy for surface characteristics. RESULTS: In the evaluated zones, implants of the Ankylos, Frialit, and Straumann systems showed mostly a reduction of the mean surface roughness Sa, the maximal surface roughness Sz, and the developed surface area ratio Sdr; Nobel implants showed an increase in these parameters. With respect to all three parameters Sa, Sz, and Sdr, statistical analysis revealed that differences between the four systems were highly significant in the apical region of implants. Controls showed no morphologic alterations. CONCLUSION: The insertion process had an impact on the surface of all four implant systems. Anodized implant surface modification seems to result in more alterations compared with subtractive surface modifications. Therefore, surgical planning should take into consideration the choice of surface treatment because the characteristics of the implants may be modified during the installation process. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The given information is of value for daily implantation practice and the course of osseointegration.
OBJECTIVES: Primary healing of dental implants is influenced by their surface morphology. However, little is known about any alterations in morphology during their insertion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the surface morphology of four different implant systems, following their insertion in porcine jaw bones. METHODS: Four fresh porcine mandible specimens were used. Six new implants of four systems (Ankylos® 4.5 × 14 mm, Frialit Synchro® 4.5 × 15 mm, NobelReplace ® Tapered Groovy RP 4.3 × 13 mm, Straumann SLA® Bone Level 3.3 × 14 mm) were inserted, whereas one implant of each system served as a control. After their removal, implants were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath. All 28 implants were examined quantitatively by 3D confocal microscopy for surface characteristics. RESULTS: In the evaluated zones, implants of the Ankylos, Frialit, and Straumann systems showed mostly a reduction of the mean surface roughness Sa, the maximal surface roughness Sz, and the developed surface area ratio Sdr; Nobel implants showed an increase in these parameters. With respect to all three parameters Sa, Sz, and Sdr, statistical analysis revealed that differences between the four systems were highly significant in the apical region of implants. Controls showed no morphologic alterations. CONCLUSION: The insertion process had an impact on the surface of all four implant systems. Anodized implant surface modification seems to result in more alterations compared with subtractive surface modifications. Therefore, surgical planning should take into consideration the choice of surface treatment because the characteristics of the implants may be modified during the installation process. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The given information is of value for daily implantation practice and the course of osseointegration.
Authors: J Mark Thomason; Jocelyne Feine; Catherine Exley; Paula Moynihan; Frauke Müller; Ignace Naert; Janice S Ellis; Craig Barclay; Chris Butterworth; Brendan Scott; Christopher Lynch; Dominic Stewardson; Philip Smith; Richard Welfare; Paul Hyde; Robert McAndrew; Michael Fenlon; Stewart Barclay; Dean Barker Journal: Br Dent J Date: 2009-08-22 Impact factor: 1.626
Authors: Mailis D Soler; Shu-Min Hsu; Chaker Fares; Fan Ren; Renita J Jenkins; Luiz Gonzaga; Arthur E Clark; Edgar O'Neill; Dan Neal; Josephine F Esquivel-Upshaw Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Javier Gil; Román Pérez; Mariano Herrero-Climent; Maria Rizo-Gorrita; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Jose Luis Gutierrez Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-12-27 Impact factor: 3.623