Regenerated Bone Pattern Around Exposed Implants with Various Designs.

PURPOSE The design and surface features of dental implants substantially affect the healing and remodeling of adjacent bones. This study aimed to investigate the impact of design and surface on bone regeneration using implants of two different pitches, each with three different surface features. MATERIALS AND METHODS Custom-manufactured titanium implants (length, 10 mm; diameter, 3.5 mm) were divided along the major axis into two sections: one with 0.6-mm pitch and the other with 0.4-mm pitch. They were processed by turned, blasting and etching, and anodic oxidation surface treatments and implanted into rabbit tibia. The upper 4 mm of the inserted implants was exposed, and bone regeneration was induced around the exposed area using a titanium chamber (height: 4 mm) containing particulate autogenous and bovine bone. After a 12-week healing period, the quantity and quality of bone regeneration around the implants were evaluated. Thirty specimens-10 specimens each from the turned, blasting and etching, and anodic oxidation surface groups with 0.6- and 0.4-mm pitch sizes- were evaluated by histomophometric analysis. RESULTS The vertical height and width of regenerated bone around blasting and etching and anodic oxidation surfaces were significantly greater than those around turned implants (P < .05); the vertical heights of regenerated bone around the 0.4-mm-pitch sections of blasting and etching and anodic oxidation surfaces were significantly greater than those around the 0.6-mm-pitch sections (P < .05). Both blasting and etching and anodic oxidation surfaces exhibited significantly greater bone-to-implant contact and bone volume at the implant thread than turned implants (P < .05). However, there was no significant difference between the 0.6- and 0.4-mm-pitch sections. CONCLUSION The findings of this study indicate that blasting and etching and anodic oxidation surfaces with a 0.4-mm-pitch design result in greater vertical ingrowth of regenerated bone than those with a 0.6-mm-pitch design.

[1]  F Rupp,et al.  Surface characteristics of dental implants: A review. , 2018, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[2]  M. Fabbro,et al.  Osseointegration of Titanium Implants With Different Rough Surfaces: A Histologic and Histomorphometric Study in an Adult Minipig Model , 2017, Implant dentistry.

[3]  M. Glogauer,et al.  Collagen based barrier membranes for periodontal guided bone regeneration applications , 2016, Odontology.

[4]  K. Ou,et al.  Early bone response to machined, sandblasting acid etching (SLA) and novel surface-functionalization (SLAffinity) titanium implants: characterization, biomechanical analysis and histological evaluation in pigs. , 2016, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[5]  P. Coelho,et al.  Osseointegration: hierarchical designing encompassing the macrometer, micrometer, and nanometer length scales. , 2015, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[6]  E. Machtei,et al.  Vertical bone augmentation using different osteoconductive scaffolds combined with barrier domes in the rat calvarium. , 2014, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[7]  V. Ottani,et al.  Early Healing Events around Titanium Implant Devices with Different Surface Microtopography: A Pilot Study in an In Vivo Rabbit Model , 2012, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[8]  B. Hacker,et al.  Effect of implant surface and grafting on implants placed into simulated extraction sockets: a histologic study in dogs. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  Paulo G Coelho,et al.  Classification of osseointegrated implant surfaces: materials, chemistry and topography. , 2010, Trends in biotechnology.

[10]  Hom-Lay Wang,et al.  The effect of thread pattern upon implant osseointegration. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  R. Jung,et al.  A randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate a new membrane for guided bone regeneration around dental implants. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  M. Casati,et al.  An oxidized implant surface may improve bone-to-implant contact in pristine bone and bone defects treated with guided bone regeneration: an experimental study in dogs. , 2008, Journal of periodontology.

[13]  I. Naert,et al.  Effect of intermittent loading and surface roughness on peri-implant bone formation in a bone chamber model. , 2007, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[14]  S. Szmukler‐Moncler,et al.  Split-crest and immediate implant placement with ultra-sonic bone surgery: a 3-year life-table analysis with 230 treated sites. , 2006, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  I. Abrahamsson,et al.  Tissue characteristics at microthreaded implants: an experimental study in dogs. , 2006, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[16]  F. Butz,et al.  Harder and Stiffer Bone Osseointegrated to Roughened Titanium , 2006, Journal of dental research.

[17]  S. Hellem,et al.  Implant treatment in combination with lateral augmentation of the alveolar process: a 3-year prospective study. , 2003, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[18]  A. Wennerberg,et al.  Histologic evaluation of bone response to oxidized and turned titanium micro-implants in human jawbone. , 2003, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[19]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Sandblasted and acid-etched dental implants: a histologic study in rats. , 2003, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.