Literature DB >> 33033921

Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field protocols in implant osseointegration: in vivo and in vitro study.

Camilla Magnoni Moretto Nunes1, Camila Lopes Ferreira1, Daniella Vicensotto Bernardo1, Cássia Carolina Rabelo Lopes1, Luma Collino1, Victória Clara da Silva Lima1, Daphne de Camargo Reis Mello2, Luana Marotta Reis de Vasconcellos2, Maria Aparecida Neves Jardini3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The present study aims to evaluate two protocols of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) on osseointegration and establish one that addresses ideal parameters for its use in dentistry, especially in the optimization of the implants osseointegration process.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty male rats (Wistar) were allocated into three experimental groups: control (GC), test A (GTA, 3 h exposed), and test B (GTB, 1 h exposed). All animals received titanium implants in both tibias, and PEMF application (15 Hz, ± 1 mT, 5 days/week) occurred only in the test groups. They were euthanized at 03, 07, 21, and 45 days after PEMF therapy. Removal torque, histomorphometric measurements, three-dimensional radiographic evaluation, and in vitro biological assay analyses were performed.
RESULTS: GTB showed better results compared with GTA in removal torque tests, in bone volume and bone mineral density, cell viability, total protein content, and mineralization nodules (p < 0.05). GTA showed better performance in trabecular bone thickness and cell proliferation compared with GTB (p < 0.05), especially at osseointegration early periods. In the histomorphometric analysis and number of trabeculae, there were no differences in the test groups.
CONCLUSION: PEMF as a biostimulator was effective in optimizing the events in bone tissue that lead to osseointegration, especially when applied for a shorter time and in the initial periods of bone healing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The PEMF therapy is an effective alternative method for optimizing bone healing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone-anchored implants; Electromagnetic fields; Osseointegration; Rats

Year:  2020        PMID: 33033921     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03612-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  34 in total

1.  The effects of pulsed electromagnetic field on the functions of osteoblasts on implant surfaces with different topographies.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Yanxin An; Feijiang Li; Dongmei Li; Da Jing; Tianwen Guo; Erping Luo; Chufan Ma
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 8.947

Review 2.  Coupling of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) therapy to molecular grounds of the cell.

Authors:  Richard Hw Funk
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 4.060

3.  Pulsed electromagnetic fields promote in vitro osteoblastogenesis through a Wnt/β-catenin signaling-associated mechanism.

Authors:  Mingming Zhai; Da Jing; Shichao Tong; Yan Wu; Pan Wang; Zhaobin Zeng; Guanghao Shen; Xin Wang; Qiaoling Xu; Erping Luo
Journal:  Bioelectromagnetics       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 2.010

Review 4.  Improving osseointegration of dental implants.

Authors:  Carlos Nelson Elias; Luiz Meirelles
Journal:  Expert Rev Med Devices       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.166

5.  Miniaturized Electromagnetic Device Abutment Improves Stability of the Dental Implants.

Authors:  Shlomo Barak; Shlomo Matalon; Oleg Dolkart; Barbara Zavan; Carmen Mortellaro; Adriano Piattelli
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.046

6.  Pulsed electromagnetic fields inhibit human osteoclast formation and gene expression via osteoblasts.

Authors:  Zhiming He; Nagarajan Selvamurugan; Johanna Warshaw; Nicola C Partridge
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 4.398

7.  Primary human osteoblasts with reduced alkaline phosphatase and matrix mineralization baseline capacity are responsive to extremely low frequency pulsed electromagnetic field exposure - Clinical implication possible.

Authors:  Sabrina Ehnert; Karsten Falldorf; Anne-Kristin Fentz; Patrick Ziegler; Steffen Schröter; Thomas Freude; Björn G Ochs; Christina Stacke; Michael Ronniger; Jens Sachtleben; Andreas K Nussler
Journal:  Bone Rep       Date:  2015-08-18

Review 8.  Pulsed electromagnetic field applications: A corporate perspective.

Authors:  Erik I Waldorff; Nianli Zhang; James T Ryaby
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Pulsed electromagnetic fields increase osteogenetic commitment of MSCs via the mTOR pathway in TNF-α mediated inflammatory conditions: an in-vitro study.

Authors:  Letizia Ferroni; Chiara Gardin; Oleg Dolkart; Moshe Salai; Shlomo Barak; Adriano Piattelli; Hadar Amir-Barak; Barbara Zavan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  The Use of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields to Promote Bone Responses to Biomaterials In Vitro and In Vivo.

Authors:  Carlo Galli; Giuseppe Pedrazzi; Monica Mattioli-Belmonte; Stefano Guizzardi
Journal:  Int J Biomater       Date:  2018-09-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.