Ernesto B Benalcázar Jalkh1, Marcelo Parra2, Andrea Torroni3, Vasudev Vivekanand Nayak4, Nick Tovar5, Arthur Castellano6, Rafael M Badalov7, Estevam A Bonfante8, Paulo G Coelho9, Lukasz Witek10. 1. University of Sao Paulo - Bauru School of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Bauru, SP, Brazil; Department of Biomaterials, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY, USA. 2. PhD Program in Morphological Sciences, Center of Excellence in Morphological and Surgical Studies Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile; Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile. 3. Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Biomaterials, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY, USA; Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, Brooklyn, NY, USA. 5. Department of Biomaterials, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY, USA; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, New York University, Langone Medical Center and Bellevue Hospital Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Mackenzie Evangelical School of Medicine Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil; Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil. 7. Department of Biomaterials, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY, USA. 8. University of Sao Paulo - Bauru School of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Bauru, SP, Brazil. 9. Department of Biomaterials, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY, USA; Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, Brooklyn, NY, USA. 10. Department of Biomaterials, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, Brooklyn, NY, USA. Electronic address: lukasz.witek@nyu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of two surface modifications on early osseointegration parameters of conical implants in a translational pre-clinical model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conical implants with progressive trapezoidal threads and healing chambers were evaluated consisting of two different surface conditions: 1) Implacil surface (IMP Sur), and 2) Implacil surface + Supplemental Acid-etching (IMP Sur + AE). Surface characterization comprised of the evaluation of roughness parameters (Sa, Sq and Sdr), surface energy and contact angle. Subsequently, implants were installed in the ilium crest of nine female sheep (weighing ~65 kg). Torque out, histological and histomorphometric analyses were conducted after 3 and 6 weeks in-vivo. The percentage of bone to implant contact (%BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy within implant threads (%BAFO) were quantified, and the results were analyzed using a general linear mixed model analysis as function of surface treatment and time in-vivo. RESULTS: Supplemental acid etching significantly increased Sa and Sq roughness parameters without compromising the surface energy or contact angle, and no significant differences with respect to Sdr. Torque-out testing yielded significantly higher values for IMP Sur + AE in comparison to the IMP Sur at 3- (62.78 ± 15 and 33.49 ± 15 N.cm, respectively) and 6-weeks (60.74 ± 15 and 39.80 ± 15 N.cm, respectively). Histological analyses depicted similar osseointegration features for both surfaces, where an intramembranous-type healing pattern was observed. At histomorphometric analyses, IMP Sur + AE implants yielded higher values of BIC in comparison to IMP Sur at 3- (40.48 ± 38 and 27.98 ± 38%, respectively) and 6-weeks (45.86 ± 38 and 34.46 ± 38%, respectively). Both groups exhibited a significant increase in %BAFO from 3 (~35%) to 6 weeks (~44%), with no significant differences between surface treatments. CONCLUSION: Supplemental acid-etching and its interplay with implant thread design, positively influenced the BIC and torque-out resistance at early stages of osseointegration.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of two surface modifications on early osseointegration parameters of conical implants in a translational pre-clinical model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conical implants with progressive trapezoidal threads and healing chambers were evaluated consisting of two different surface conditions: 1) Implacil surface (IMP Sur), and 2) Implacil surface + Supplemental Acid-etching (IMP Sur + AE). Surface characterization comprised of the evaluation of roughness parameters (Sa, Sq and Sdr), surface energy and contact angle. Subsequently, implants were installed in the ilium crest of nine female sheep (weighing ~65 kg). Torque out, histological and histomorphometric analyses were conducted after 3 and 6 weeks in-vivo. The percentage of bone to implant contact (%BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy within implant threads (%BAFO) were quantified, and the results were analyzed using a general linear mixed model analysis as function of surface treatment and time in-vivo. RESULTS: Supplemental acid etching significantly increased Sa and Sq roughness parameters without compromising the surface energy or contact angle, and no significant differences with respect to Sdr. Torque-out testing yielded significantly higher values for IMP Sur + AE in comparison to the IMP Sur at 3- (62.78 ± 15 and 33.49 ± 15 N.cm, respectively) and 6-weeks (60.74 ± 15 and 39.80 ± 15 N.cm, respectively). Histological analyses depicted similar osseointegration features for both surfaces, where an intramembranous-type healing pattern was observed. At histomorphometric analyses, IMP Sur + AE implants yielded higher values of BIC in comparison to IMP Sur at 3- (40.48 ± 38 and 27.98 ± 38%, respectively) and 6-weeks (45.86 ± 38 and 34.46 ± 38%, respectively). Both groups exhibited a significant increase in %BAFO from 3 (~35%) to 6 weeks (~44%), with no significant differences between surface treatments. CONCLUSION: Supplemental acid-etching and its interplay with implant thread design, positively influenced the BIC and torque-out resistance at early stages of osseointegration.