HISTOMORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF PURE TITANIUM IMPLANTS WITH POROUS SURFACE VERSUS ROUGH SURFACE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the bone repair around commercially pure titanium implants with rough and porous surface, fabricated using powder metallurgy technique, after their insertion in tibiae of rabbits. Seven male rabbits were used. Each animal received 3 porous-surface implants in the left tibia and 3 rough-surface implants in the right tibia. The rabbits were sacrificed 4 weeks after surgery and fragments of the tibiae containing the implants were submitted to histological and histomorphometric analyses to evaluate new bone formation at the implant-bone interface. Means (%) of bone neoformation obtained in the histomorphometric analysis were compared by Student's t-test for paired samples at 5% significance level.. The results of the histological analysis showed that osseointegration occurred for both types of implants with similar quality of bone tissue. The histomorphometric analysis revealed means of new bone formation at implant-bone interface of 79.69 ± 1.00% and 65.05 ± 1.23% for the porous- and rough-surface implants, respectively. Statistically significant difference was observed between the two types of implants with respect to the amount new bone formation (p<0.05). In conclusion, the porous-surface implants contributed to the osseointegration because they provide a larger contact area at implant-bone interface.

[1]  D. Landolt,et al.  Differential regulation of osteoblasts by substrate microstructural features. , 2005, Biomaterials.

[2]  Andrea Bagno,et al.  Surface treatments and roughness properties of Ti-based biomaterials , 2004, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.

[3]  R M Pilliar,et al.  The effect of sol-gel-formed calcium phosphate coatings on bone ingrowth and osteoconductivity of porous-surfaced Ti alloy implants. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[4]  D. Martini,et al.  Biomechanical and histomorphometric investigations on two morphologically differing titanium surfaces with and without fluorohydroxyapatite coating: an experimental study in sheep tibiae. , 2003, Biomaterials.

[5]  L. C. Pereira,et al.  Porous Structure Characterization in Titanium Coating for Surgical Implants , 2002 .

[6]  A. García-Luis,et al.  Improved osseointegration in ion implantation-treated dental implants , 2002 .

[7]  D. Deporter,et al.  Porous-surfaced dental implants in the partially edentulous maxilla: assessment for subclinical mobility. , 2002, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[8]  C. Lohmann,et al.  Migration, Matrix Production and Lamellar Bone Formation of Human Osteoblast-Like Cells in Porous Titanium Implants , 2002, Cells Tissues Organs.

[9]  W R Walsh,et al.  Morphometric and mechanical evaluation of titanium implant integration: comparison of five surface structures. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[10]  S. Yalçın,et al.  Histologic and histomorphometric comparison of immediately placed hydroxyapatite-coated and titanium plasma-sprayed implants: a pilot study in dogs. , 1999, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  John B. Brunski,et al.  In Vivo Bone Response to Biomechanical Loading at the Bone/Dental-Implant Interface , 1999, Advances in dental research.

[12]  S D Cook,et al.  In vivo performance of a modified CSTi dental implant coating. , 1998, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[13]  J. Lane,et al.  Current understanding of osteoconduction in bone regeneration. , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  D Buser,et al.  Osseointegration: a reality. , 1998, Periodontology 2000.

[15]  J. Ellingsen.  Surface configurations of dental implants. , 1998, Periodontology 2000.

[16]  J C Keller,et al.  Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[17]  P. Watson,et al.  A Histological Comparison in the Dog of Porous-coated vs. Threaded Dental Implants , 1990, Journal of dental research.

[18]  R. Pilliar,et al.  A Histological Assessment of the Initial Healing Response Adjacent to Porous-surfaced, Titanium Alloy Dental Implants in Dogs , 1986, Journal of dental research.

[19]  Y Zilberman,et al.  Osseous adaptation to continuous loading of rigid endosseous implants. , 1984, American journal of orthodontics.

[20]  P. Branemark.  Osseointegration and its experimental background. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  B. Kasemo.  Biocompatibility of titanium implants: surface science aspects. , 1983, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[22]  G. M. Vidigal,et al.  Histomorphometric analyses of hydroxyapatite-coated and uncoated titanium dental implants in rabbit cortical bone. , 1999, Implant dentistry.

[23]  R. Pilliar,et al.  Overview of surface variability of metallic endosseous dental implants: textured and porous surface-structured designs. , 1998, Implant dentistry.

[24]  B D Boyan,et al.  Role of material surfaces in regulating bone and cartilage cell response. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[25]  S. Cook,et al.  In vivo evaluation of a CSTi dental implant: a healing time course study. , 1995, The Journal of oral implantology.

[26]  Cranin An.  Contradictions of commerce and how it confounds the clinician. , 1995 .