The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

ON THE BONE TISSUE REACTION TO IMPLANTS WITH DIFFERENT SURFACE TREATMENT METHODS

임플랜트 표면 처리 방법에 따른 골조직 반응에 대한 연구

  • Kim, Yong-Jae (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Cho, In-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 김용재 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 조인호 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Published : 2007.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem: Implant surface characteristics plays an important role in clinical success and many studies have been made for improvement of success by changing surface roughness. Purpose: Appropriate increase of surface roughness increases the activity of osteoblast and enhance contact and retention between bone and implant. Material and method- Machined, SLA and RBM surface implants, which are the most commonly used implants were implanted into the tibia of rabbits and after 1 week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 12 weeks there were histologic and histomorphometric analysis and study for bone gradient and change of Ca/P ratio using EDS(Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscope). Results: Comparison of bone-implant contact showed no significant difference among each implant. In comparison of bone area rates, SLA showed higher value with significant difference at 1 week and 4 weeks, and SLA and RBM at 8 weeks than Machined implant (p<0.05). In analysis of bone constituents with EDS, titanium was specifically detected in new bones and the rates were constant by surface treatment method or period. In case of Ca/P ratio, according to surface treatment method, each group showed significant difference. Lots of old bone fragments produced during implantation remained on the rough surface of RBM implant surface and each group showed histological finding with active synthesis of collagen fibers until 12 weeks. In transmission electronic microscopic examination of sample slice after elapse of twelve weeks, tens nm of borderline (lamina limitans like dense line)was seen to contact the bone, on the interface between bone and implant. Conclusion: SLA and RBM implant with rough surface shows better histomorphometrical result and the trend of prolonged bone formation and maturation in comparison with Machined implant. In addition, implant with rough surface seems to be helpful in early stage bone formation due to remaining of old bone fragments produced in implantation. From the results above, it is considered to be better to use implant with rough surface in implantation.

Keywords

References

  1. Hayakawa T, Kiba H, Yasuda S, Yamamoto H, Nemoto K. A histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of two type of retrieved human titanium implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002;22:164-71
  2. Lazzara RJ, Testori T, Trisi P, Porter SS, Weinstein RL. A human histologic analysis of Osseotite and machined surfaces using implants with 2 opposing surfaces. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999;19:117-29
  3. London R, Roberts F, Baker D, Rohrer M, O'Neal R. Histologic comparison of a thermal dual-etched implant surface to machined, TPS, and HA surfaces: bone contact in vivo in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:369-76
  4. Jo IH, Kim JY, Park SS, Park JS, Lim HS. The study of implant surround tissue response of mouse with ossteoporosis to induct ovary ressection. J Korean Acad Prothodont 1998;36:183-98
  5. Chehrouri B, McDonnell D, Brunette D. The effects of micromachined surfaces on formation of bone-like tissue on subcutaneous implants as accessed by radiography and computer image processing. J Biomed Mater Res 1997;37;139-51
  6. Kang BS, Cho IH. The histomorphologic analysis and stabilization of two implant to differ surface roughness. J korean academy of oral & maxillofacial implantology 2001;1:42-69
  7. Jang KS, Kim DS. Avana The analysis of surface treatment in Avana implant. J korean dentist association 2000;38:956-60
  8. Jo DH, Lim JH. The study of surface roughness and early stabilization of several implant. J korean acad of stomatog funcocc 2000;3:197-210
  9. Buser B, Schenk RK, Steinmann 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 Master Res 1991;25:889-902 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820250708
  10. Carsson L, Rostlund T, Albreksson B, Albrektsson T. Removal torque for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:21-4
  11. Degidi M, Petrone G, Iezzi G, Piattelli A. Bone contact around acid-etched implants: A histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of two human-retrieved implants. J Oral Implantol 2003;29:13-8 https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2003)029<0013:BCAAIA>2.3.CO;2
  12. 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;12:486-94
  13. Wennerberg A, Hallgren C, Johansson C, Danelli S. A histomorphometric evaluation of screw-shaped implants each prepared with two surface roughness. Clin Oral Implant Res 1998;9:11-9 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090102.x
  14. Marinho V, Celletti R, Bracchetti G, Petrone G, Minkin C, Piattelli A. Sandblasted and acid etched dental implants: A histologic study in rats. Int J Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:75-81
  15. Mueller WD, Gross U, Fritz T. Evaluation of the interface between bone and titanium surface being blasted by aluminium oxide or bioceramic particles. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14;349-56 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00791.x
  16. Abrahamsson I, Zitzmann N, Berglundh T, Wennerberg A, Lindhe J. Bone and soft tissue integration to titanium implants with different surface topography: An experimental study in the dog. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:323-32
  17. Kim YH, Koak JY, Chang IT, Wennerberg A, Heo SJ. A histomorphometric analysis of the effects of various surface treatment methods on osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:349-56
  18. Oh TJ, Yoon J, Meraw SJ, Giannobile WV, Wang HL. Healing and osseointegration of submerged microtextured oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:643-50 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00887.x
  19. Bowers K, Keller J, Randolph B, Wick D, Michaels C. Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast response in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7;302-10
  20. Martin J, Schwartz Z, Hummert T. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:389-401 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820290314
  21. Novaes AB, Souza S, Oliveira PT. Histomorphometric analysis of the boneimplant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:377-83
  22. Vernino A, Kohles S, Holt R Jr, Lee HM, Caudill R, Kenealy J. Dual-etched implants loaded after 1- and 2-month healing periods: A histologic comparison in baboons. Int J Perio Rest Dent 2002;22(4):399-407
  23. Larsson C, Thomsen P, Lausmaa J, Rodahl M, Kasemo B, Eriksson L. Bone response to surface-modified titanium implants: Studies on electropolished implants with different oxide thickness and morphology. Biomaterials 1994;15:1062- 74 https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(94)90092-2
  24. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B. Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:38-45
  25. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andersson B. Experimental study of turned and grit-blasted screw-shaped implants with special emphasis on effects of blasting material and surface topography. Biomaterials 1996;17:15-22 https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(96)80750-2
  26. Bjursten L, Emanuelsson L, Ericson L, Thomsen P, Lausmaa J, Mattson L, et al. A new method for ultrastuctural studies of the intact tissue-metal interface. Biomaterials 1990;11:596-601 https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(90)90085-5
  27. Hansson H, Albrektsson T, Branemark P. Structural aspects of the interface between tissue and titanium implants. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:108-14 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90175-0
  28. Rocci A, Martignoni M, Burgos PM, Gottlow J, Sennerby L. Histology of retrieved immediately and early loaded oxidized implants: Light microscopic observations after 5 to 9 months of loading in the posterior mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:88-98 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00020.x