Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of Clinical Initial Stability of Hydroxy-apatite Coated Implant and Sandblasted, Large-grit and Acid-etched Implant

수산화인회석 코팅 임플란트와 Sandblasted, Large-grit and Acid-etched Implant의 임상적 초기 안정성 비교

  • Lim, Hyoung-Sup (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Su-Gwan (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Oh, Ji-Su (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 임형섭 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 김수관 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 오지수 (조선대학교 치의학전문대학원 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Received : 2011.12.02
  • Accepted : 2012.03.20
  • Published : 2012.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study attempts to compare the stability of hydroxy-apatite coating implant with that of sandblasted, large-grit and acid-etched surface implant at an early state of installation. Methods: 35 implants were installed in 18 patients, who had visited hospital for implant installation. The early stability at operation, 6 weeks and 12 weeks after operation using Osstell$^{TM}$ mentor (Integration Diagnostics, Savedalen, Sweden) and Periotest$^{(R)}$ (Siemens AG, Benssheim, Germany) were measured, and subsequently analyzed statistically. Results: OsstellTM mentor value of hydroxy-apatite coated implant (HAPTITE) was measured as $70.14{\pm}9.07$ at the stage of installation, $76.98{\pm}5.25$ at 6 weeks and $80.28{\pm}4.23$ at 12 weeks after installation. A statistically significant increase in measurement value was observed after 6 weeks and 12 weeks than when implants were placed. In case of IMPLANTIUM (DENTIUM Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea), the measurement value was $74.68{\pm}7.42$ at installation, $79.03{\pm}4.39$ at 6 weeks and $80.59{\pm}3.59$ at 12 weeks after installation. In addition, a statistically significant increase in the value was observed when comparative analysis of the value at after installation and 12 weeks after installation was carried out. However, no significant difference between HAPTITE and IMPLANTIUM was observed. The average measurement value of periotest$^{(R)}$ was $-1.94{\pm}3.90$ at installation of HAPTITE, $-4.03{\pm}1.48$ at 6 weeks and $-5.00{\pm}1.71$ at 12 weeks after installation. Moreover, whilst comparing the value at after installation and 12 weeks after installation, statistically significant decrease in the value was observed. In case of IMPLANTIUM, the average measurement value was measured as $-4.25{\pm}1.76$ at installation, $-4.76{\pm}0.97$ at 6 weeks and $-5.18{\pm}0.91$ at 12 weeks after installation and no statistically significant difference was observed. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was observed between HAPTITE and IMPLANTIUM. Conclusion: In this study, both the implants demonstrated favorable early stability at the time of measurement using Osstell$^{TM}$ mentor and Periotest$^{(R)}$. Moreover, based on the observed results, both HAPTITE and IMPLANTIUM are considered as potent to exhibit clinically stable and prognostic results.

Keywords

References

  1. Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977;16:1-132.
  2. Levine RA, Clem DS 3rd, Wilson TG Jr, Higginbottom F, Solnit G. Multicenter retrospective analysis of the ITI implant system used for single-tooth replacements: results of loading for 2 or more years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:516-20.
  3. Lekholm U, Van Steenberghe D, Herrmann I, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:627-35.
  4. Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, et al. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:161-72. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x
  5. Tolman DE, Laney WR. Tissue-integrated prosthesis complications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:477-84.
  6. Balshi TJ. An analysis and management of fractured implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:660-6.
  7. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Brånemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59.
  8. Eliades T. Passive film growth on titanium alloys: physicochemical and biologic considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:621-7.
  9. Pan J, Thierry D, Leygraf C. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy study of the passive oxide film on titanium for implant application. Electrochimica Acta 1996;41:1143-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4686(95)00465-3
  10. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B. Design and surface characteristics of 13 commercially available oral implant systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:622-33.
  11. Cochran DL. A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. J Periodontol 1999;70:1523-39. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1999.70.12.1523
  12. Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Van't Hof MA, Jansen JA, Creugers NH. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2006;85:496-500. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910608500603
  13. Takeshita F, Iyama S, Ayukawa Y, Akedo H, Suetsugu T. Study of bone formation around dense hydroxyapatite implants using light microscopy, image processing and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Biomaterials 1997;18:317-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(96)00143-3
  14. Ishizawa H, Fujino M, Ogino M. Mechanical and histological investigation of hydrothermally treated and untreated anodic titanium oxide films containing Ca and P. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:1459-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820291118
  15. Gotfredsen K, Wennerberg A, Johansson C, Skovgaard LT, Hjørting-Hansen E. Anchorage of TiO2-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:1223-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820291009
  16. De Lange GL, De Putter C, De Wijs FL. Histological and ultrastructural appearance of the hydroxyapatite-bone interface. J Biomed Mater Res 1990;24:829-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820240704
  17. Inoue T, Matsuzaka K, Yoshinari M, Abiko Y, Shimono M. Implant-bone tissue interface. Bull Kanagawa Dent Coll 1999; 27:132-41.
  18. Tamura M, Tanaka O, Maida T. A 5-year clinical study of hydroxyapatite(HA)-coated implants. J Jpn Prosthodont Soc 1997;41:620-8. https://doi.org/10.2186/jjps.41.620
  19. Kent JN, Block MS, Finger IM, Guerra L, Larsen H, Misiek DJ. Biointegrated hydroxylapatite-coated dental implants: 5-year clinical observations. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;121:138-44. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1990.0138
  20. Mimura K, Watanabe K, Okawa S, Kobayashi M, Miyakawa O. Morphological and chemical characterizations of the interface of a hydroxyapatite-coated implant. Dent Mater J 2004; 23:353-60. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.23.353
  21. Lee JH, Kim SG, Lim SC. Histomophometric study of bone relations with different hydroxyapatite coating thickness on dental implants in dogs. Thin Solid Films 2011;519:4618-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsf.2011.01.004
  22. Kim SS, Lee JH, Yu SH, et al. Comparative study of removal torque of 3 different hydroxyapatite coated implants in the femur of rabbits. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 37:49-53. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2011.37.1.49
  23. Lee KW, Bae CM, Jung JY, et al. Surface characteristics and biological studies of hydroxyapatite coating by a new method. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2011;98B:395-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31864
  24. Cochran DL, Buser D, ten Bruggenkate CM, 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;13:144-53. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130204.x
  25. 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 Mater Res 1991;25:889-902. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820250708
  26. Block MS, Kent JN, Kay JF. Evaluation of hydroxylapatitecoated titanium dental implants in dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987;45:601-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(87)90270-9
  27. Hentrich RL, Graves GA, Stein HG, Bajpai PK. An evaluation of inert and resorbable ceramics for future clinical orthopedic applications. J Biomed Mater Res 1971;5:25-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820050104
  28. Jarcho M. Calcium phosphate ceramics as hard tissue prosthetics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1981;(157):259-78.
  29. Kasemo B. Biocompatibility of titanium implants: surface science aspects. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:832-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90359-1
  30. Søballe K. Hydroxyapatite ceramic coating for bone implant fixation. Mechanical and histological studies in dogs. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1993;255:1-58.
  31. Kohri M, Cooper EP, Ferracane JL, Waite DF. Comparative study of hydroxyapatite and titanium dental implants in dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48:1265-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(90)90480-P
  32. Golec TS, Krauser JT. Long-term retrospective studies on hydroxyapatite coated endosteal and subperiosteal implants. Dent Clin North Am 1992;36:39-65.
  33. Bowers KT, Keller JC, Randolph BA, Wick DG, Michaels CM. Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses invitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7: 302-10.
  34. Cook SD, Baffes GC, Palafox AJ, Wolfe MW, Burgess A. Torsional stability of HA-coated and grit-blasted titanium dental implants. J Oral Implantol 1992;18:354-65.
  35. Baker D, London RM, O'Neal R. Rate of pull-out strength gain of dual-etched titanium implants: a comparative study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:722-8.
  36. Gotfredsen K, Nimb L, Hjörting-Hansen E, Jensen JS, Holmén A. Histomorphometric and removal torque analysis for TiO2- blasted titanium implants. An experimental study on dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:77-84. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030205.x
  37. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Alrektsson T, editors. Tissue integrated prostheses. Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago, Quintessence; 1985. p.199-209.
  38. Martin JY, Schwartz Z, Hummert TW, et al. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:389-401. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820290314
  39. Jo JH, Kim SG, Moon SY, et al. Retrospective study of sandblasted, large-grit and acid-etched implant. J Korean Assoc Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;33:352-8.
  40. Kwak JW, Kim TH, Park HJ, Oh HK. Effect of implant surface characteristics on osseointegration in the ilium of dogs. J Korean Assoc Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;26:531-41.