Literature DB >> 3782184

Threaded versus porous-surfaced designs for implant stabilization in bone-endodontic implant model.

C Maniatopoulos, R M Pilliar, D C Smith.   

Abstract

An endodontic implant model system was used to compare the effect of implant design on stabilization in bone. Specifically a porous-surfaced design was compared to conventional threaded and smooth-tapered endodontic implant designs. All implants were placed in immediate function thereby assessing the effect of early limited movement on the fixation achieved. A total of eighty-three endodontic implants were inserted in the mandibles of six adult mongrel dogs. Animals were sacrificed immediately after implantation and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Implants were evaluated by clinical and radiographic examination and after animal sacrifice by pull-out tests of the implant from the tissues, SEM examination of the pulled-out implants and, finally, histology. The pull-out test results indicated increasing shear strength with implantation time for the porous-surfaced implants in contrast to the gradual loss of fixation for the threaded implants and the continuous low shear strength for the smooth implants. Histological studies and SEM examination indicated the reason for these changes. Smooth implants became encapsulated by fibrous connective tissue from early post-implantation time periods. Threaded implants, although initially mechanically interlocked with bone, developed a fibrous connective tissue capsule that gradually thickened with time until, by 6 months, little mechanical interlock of bone and implant was present. It was assumed that this fibrous capsule thickening was caused by implant movement. The porous-surfaced implants, however, became stabilized by bone ingrowth and showed more extensive bone formation within the surface pores with time. It is concluded that for implants that are made functional immediately after implantation, as in this study, porous-surfaced implants can become strongly fixed by bone ingrowth, in contrast to conventional threaded or smooth-surfaced designs, thus presenting a more favourable long term prognosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3782184     DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820200907

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res        ISSN: 0021-9304


  10 in total

1.  Enhanced Osteoblast Response to Porosity and Resolution of Additively Manufactured Ti-6Al-4V Constructs with Trabeculae-Inspired Porosity.

Authors:  Alice Cheng; Aiza Humayun; Barbara D Boyan; Zvi Schwartz
Journal:  3D Print Addit Manuf       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 5.449

2.  Do Surface Porosity and Pore Size Influence Mechanical Properties and Cellular Response to PEEK?

Authors:  F Brennan Torstrick; Nathan T Evans; Hazel Y Stevens; Ken Gall; Robert E Guldberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  High incidence of stem loosening in association with periprosthetic femur fractures in previously well-fixed cementless grit-blasted tapered-wedge stems.

Authors:  Seung-Jae Lim; Kyung-Jae Lee; Byung-Woo Min; Joo-Hyoun Song; Sang-Yeon So; Youn-Soo Park
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  Biomaterial strategies for engineering implants for enhanced osseointegration and bone repair.

Authors:  Rachit Agarwal; Andrés J García
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 15.470

Review 5.  Laser Sintering Approaches for Bone Tissue Engineering.

Authors:  Jeremy N DiNoro; Naomi C Paxton; Jacob Skewes; Zhilian Yue; Philip M Lewis; Robert G Thompson; Stephen Beirne; Maria A Woodruff; Gordon G Wallace
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 4.967

6.  Osteogenic activity of locally applied small molecule drugs in a rat femur defect model.

Authors:  Jessica A Cottrell; Francis M Vales; Deborah Schachter; Scott Wadsworth; Rama Gundlapalli; Rasesh Kapadia; J Patrick O'Connor
Journal:  J Biomed Biotechnol       Date:  2010-06-16

Review 7.  Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: lessons for spine implants.

Authors:  Rolando A Gittens; Rene Olivares-Navarrete; Zvi Schwartz; Barbara D Boyan
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 8.947

8.  Laser beam melting 3D printing of Ti6Al4V based porous structured dental implants: fabrication, biocompatibility analysis and photoelastic study.

Authors:  Fei Yang; Chen Chen; QianRong Zhou; YiMing Gong; RuiXue Li; ChiChi Li; Florian Klämpfl; Sebastian Freund; XingWen Wu; Yang Sun; Xiang Li; Michael Schmidt; Duan Ma; YouCheng Yu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  Additive manufactured polyether-ether-ketone implants for orthopaedic applications: a narrative review.

Authors:  Changning Sun; Jianfeng Kang; Chuncheng Yang; Jibao Zheng; Yanwen Su; Enchun Dong; Yingjie Liu; Siqi Yao; Changquan Shi; Huanhao Pang; Jiankang He; Ling Wang; Chaozong Liu; Jianhua Peng; Liang Liu; Yong Jiang; Dichen Li
Journal:  Biomater Transl       Date:  2022-06-28

Review 10.  Spinal Implant Osseointegration and the Role of 3D Printing: An Analysis and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Cameron Kia; Christopher L Antonacci; Ian Wellington; Heeren S Makanji; Sean M Esmende
Journal:  Bioengineering (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-06
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.