Literature DB >> 9638001

A quantitative comparison of machined commercially pure titanium and titanium-aluminum-vanadium implants in rabbit bone.

C B Johansson1, C H Han, A Wennerberg, T Albrektsson.   

Abstract

Screw-shaped implants made from rods of commercially pure titanium (grade 1) and titanium-aluminum-vanadium (grade 5) were machined, and the implant surface structures were numerically described before being placed in rabbit tibiae for healing periods of 1 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Quantitative comparisons of the removal torque (Ncm) necessary to loosen the implants from the bone bed were performed. Short-term (1 month) observations revealed no significant differences between the two tested materials. However, after 6 and 12 months, the commercially pure titanium implants were significantly more stable in the bone bed, as compared to the alloy samples. After 6 months, the commercially pure titanium had a mean removal torque of 29 Ncm versus 23 for the alloy (P = .01), and after 12 months, the mean removal torque was 38 Ncm for commercially pure titanium as compared to 35 Ncm for the alloy (P = .01). Quantifications of the bone tissue response to the materials did not show any significant differences; however, the commercially pure titanium showed a tendency to have a higher percentage of bone in contact with the implant as compared to the alloy screws. Bone volumes in the threads were similar. The absence of any quantitative light microscopic difference after 1 month following placement may relate to the fact that there was a sparse amount of bone, since the tissue was in the organization/granulation phase. After 6 and 12 months of follow-up, substantial bone formation had occurred, resulting in significantly increased removal torques for the commercially pure titanium samples.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9638001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  12 in total

1.  Biomechanical effect of one session of low-level laser on the bone-titanium implant interface.

Authors:  Carolina Boldrini; Juliano Milanezi de Almeida; Leandro Araújo Fernandes; Fernando Salimon Ribeiro; Valdir Gouveia Garcia; Letícia Helena Theodoro; Ana Emília Farias Pontes
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 3.161

2.  The effects of early osseointegration in different implant sites in rabbit tibias.

Authors:  Mingdeng Rong; Andi Zhu; Zehong Guo; Lei Zhou; Shaobing Li; Haibin Lu; Xueyang Zhang
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 3.896

3.  Particle migration and gap healing around trabecular metal implants.

Authors:  O Rahbek; S Kold; B Zippor; S Overgaard; K Søballe
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2005-08-31       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Determination of the dynamics of healing at the tissue-implant interface by means of microcomputed tomography and functional apparent moduli.

Authors:  Po-Chun Chang; Yang-Jo Seol; Steven A Goldstein; William V Giannobile
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 5.  Evaluation of functional dynamics during osseointegration and regeneration associated with oral implants.

Authors:  Po-Chun Chang; Niklaus P Lang; William V Giannobile
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.977

6.  In vitro and in vivo studies of surface-structured implants for bone formation.

Authors:  Lu Xia; Bo Feng; Peizhi Wang; Siyang Ding; Zhiyuan Liu; Jie Zhou; Rong Yu
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2012-09-11

7.  Bone cutting capacity and osseointegration of surface-treated orthodontic mini-implants.

Authors:  Ho-Young Kim; Sang-Cheol Kim
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 1.372

8.  Mechanical Characterisation and Biomechanical and Biological Behaviours of Ti-Zr Binary-Alloy Dental Implants.

Authors:  Aritza Brizuela-Velasco; Esteban Pérez-Pevida; Antonio Jiménez-Garrudo; Francisco Javier Gil-Mur; José María Manero; Miquel Punset-Fuste; David Chávarri-Prado; Markel Diéguez-Pereira; Francesca Monticelli
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Comparison of implant stability after different implant surface treatments in dog bone.

Authors:  Sun-Jong Kim; Myung-Rae Kim; Jae-Suk Rim; Sung-Min Chung; Sang-Wan Shin
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.698

10.  Degradation and Biocompatibility of AZ31 Magnesium Alloy Implants In Vitro and In Vivo: A Micro-Computed Tomography Study in Rats.

Authors:  Naohiko Kawamura; Yuya Nakao; Rina Ishikawa; Dai Tsuchida; Masahiro Iijima
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-19       Impact factor: 3.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.