Histomorphometric evaluation of bioceramic molecular impregnated and dual acid-etched implant surfaces in the human posterior maxilla.

BACKGROUND Physical and bioceramic incorporation surface treatments at the nanometer scale showed higher means of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and torque values compared with surface topography at the micrometer scale; however, the literature concerning the effect of nanometer scale parameters is sparse. PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of two different implant surfaces on the percentage bone-to-implant contact (BIC%) and bone osteocyte density in the human posterior maxilla after 2 months of unloaded healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS The implants utilized presented dual acid-etched (DAE) surface and a bioceramic molecular impregnated treatment (Ossean®, Intra-Lock International, Boca Raton, FL, USA) serving as control and test, respectively. Ten subjects (59 ± 9 years of age) received two implants (one of each surface) during conventional implant surgery in the posterior maxilla. After the non-loaded period of 2 months, the implants and the surrounding tissue were removed by means of a trephine and were non-decalcified processed for ground sectioning and analysis of BIC%, bone density in threaded area (BA%), and osteocyte index (Oi). RESULTS Two DAE implants were found to be clinically unstable at time of retrieval. Histometric evaluation showed significantly higher BIC% and Oi for the test compared to the control surface (p < .05), and that BA% was not significantly different between groups. Wilcoxon matched pairs test was used to compare the differences of histomorphometric variables between implant surfaces. The significance test was conducted at a 5% level of significance. CONCLUSION The histological data suggest that the bioceramic molecular impregnated surface-treated implants positively modulated bone healing at early implantation times compared to the DAE surface.