Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OSSEOINTEGRATION OF 4 DIFFERENT SURFACED IMPLANTS IN THE TIBIA OF DOGS

성견 경골에서 표면처리방법이 다른 4종의 임프란트 골유착에 관한 비교연구

  • Hong, Who-Suk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Kim, Tae-Hee (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Ryu, Seong-Hee (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Kook, Min-Suk (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Park, Hong-Ju (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Oh, Hee-Kyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Dental Science Research Institute, Chonnam National University)
  • 홍후석 (전남대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실, 치의학연구소) ;
  • 김태희 (전남대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실, 치의학연구소) ;
  • 류승희 (전남대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실, 치의학연구소) ;
  • 국민석 (전남대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실, 치의학연구소) ;
  • 박홍주 (전남대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실, 치의학연구소) ;
  • 오희균 (전남대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실, 치의학연구소)
  • Published : 2005.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was performed in order to compare the osseointegration of 4 different surfaced implants in the dog's tibia which has thick dense cortical bone and loose marrow space. Materials & methods: Four mongrel dogs and four different surface types of implants, smooth surfaced AVANA implants, RBM surfaced AVANA implants, HA-coated Steri-Oss implants and SLA Bicon implants, were used in this study. The animals were divided into 4 groups on the basis of implant surface characteristics: Control group, RBM group, HA group, and SLA group. Three implants of each group were installed into the metaphysis of tibia of adult dogs. The animals were sacrificed at 8 weeks after implantation. The undecalcified specimens were prepared for histological examination and histomorphometric analysis of implant-bone contact ratios. Results: Radiographically and histologically good osseointegration of implant was observed in the dense cortical bone, but poor osseointegration was observed in the marrow space. Histologically more bone apposition to implant surface was found in rough surfaced groups than the smooth surfaced, Control group. In histomorphometric findings of cortical bone the average bone-implant contact ratios of HA group (95.4%, p<0.01), RBM group (87.1%, p<0.05), and SLA group (86.0%, p<0.05) were significantly higher than that of Control group (75.9%). In marrow space the average bone-implant contact ratios of HA group (76.1%, p<0.01) and SLA group (45.4%, p<0.05) were significantly higher than that of Control group (29.6%). The ratio of RBM group was higher than that of Control group but there was no significantly difference between RBM group and Control group. Conclusion: These results suggest that the rough surfaced implants can obtain the better osseointegration than the smooth surfaced implant in the cortical and marrow space and that HA-coated implants can obtain the best osseointegration in the marrow space among them.

Keywords

References

  1. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR : The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1:11-25
  2. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D : The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: Short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:169-178
  3. Hutton JE, Heath MR, Chai JY, Harnett J, Jemt T, Johns RB, et al : Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow-up in a multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:33-42
  4. Predecki P, Auslaender BA, Stephan JE, Mooney VL, Stanitski C : Attachment of bone to threaded implants by ingrowth and mechanical interlocking. J Biomed Mater Res 1972;6:401-412 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820060507
  5. Martinez H, Davarpanah M, Missika P, Celletti R, Lazzara R : Optimal implant stabilization in low density bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:423-432 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120501.x
  6. Cook SD, Kay JF, Thomas KA, Jarcho M : Interface mechanics and histology of titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated titanium for dental implant applications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:15-22
  7. Block MS, Kent JN, Kay JF : Evaluation of hydroxyapatite-coated titanium dental implants in dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987; 45:601-607 https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(87)90270-9
  8. Trisi P, Lazzara R, Rao W, Rebaudi A : Bone-implant contact and bone quality: Evaluation of expected and actual bone contact on machined and osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002;22:535-545
  9. Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Iezzi G, Petrone G, Piattelli A : Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: An experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2002; 28:2-8 https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0002:BRTMAR>2.3.CO;2
  10. Sanz A, Oyarzun A, Farias D, Diaz I : Experimental study of bone response to a new surface treatment of endosseous titanium implants. Implant Dent 2001;10:126-131 https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-200104000-00009
  11. Cochran DL, Buser D, Bruggenkate CM, Weingart D, Taylor TM, Bernard JP, et al : The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13:144-153 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130204.x
  12. Wong M, Eulenberger J, Schenk R, Hunziker E : Effect of surface topology on the osseointegration of implant materials in trabecular bone. J Biomed Mat Res 1995;29:1567-1575 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820291213
  13. Cheang P, Khor KA : Addressing processing problems associated with plasma spraying of hydroxyapatite coatings. Biomaterials 1996;17:537-544 https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(96)82729-3
  14. Wheeler SL : Eight-year clinical retrospective study of titanium plasma- sprayed and hydroxyapatite-coated cylinder implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:340-350
  15. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H : Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mat Res 1991;25:889-902 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820250708
  16. Ricci JL, Kummer FJ, Alexander H : Embedded particulate contaminants in textured metal implants surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 1992;3:225-230
  17. Branemark PI : Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2
  18. Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP, Cochran DL, Nolte LP : Removal torque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:611-619
  19. Lekholm U, Zarb GA : Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago, Quintessence Publishing Co. 1985;199-209
  20. Jaffin RA, Berman CL : The excessive loss of Branemark fixtures in type IV bone: A 5-year analysis. J periodontol 1991;62:2-4 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1991.62.1.2
  21. Carlsson L, Rostlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T : Implant fixation improved by close fit. Cylindrical implant-bone interface studied in rabbits. Acta Orthop Scand 1988;59:272-275 https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678809149361
  22. Misch CE : Comtemporary Implant Dentistry. Mosby Co. 1999;109-155
  23. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K : Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-552 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70208-8
  24. Bryant SR : The effect of age, jaw site, and bone conditions on oral implant outcomes. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:470-490
  25. Albrektsson T, Sennerby L : Direct bone anchorage of oral implants: Clinical and experimental considerations of the concept of osseointegration. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:30-41
  26. Zechner W, Tangl S, Furst G, Tepper G, Thams U, Mailath G, Watzek G : Osseous healing characteristics of three different implant types. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:150-157 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140203.x
  27. Piattelli A, Manzon L, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Piattelli M : Histologic and histomorphometric analysis of the bone response to machined and sandblasted titanium implants: An experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:805-810
  28. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B, Krol JJ : A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:24-30 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060103.x
  29. Bowers KT, Keller JC, Randolph BA, Wick DG, Michaels CM : Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:302-310
  30. Wennerberg A, Ektessabi A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andersson B : A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:486- 494