Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.4.302

Comparison of removal torques between laser-treated and SLA-treated implant surfaces in rabbit tibiae  

Kang, Nam-Seok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Pook National University)
Li, Lin-Jie (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Pook National University)
Cho, Sung-Am (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Pook National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.6, no.4, 2014 , pp. 302-308 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare removal torques and surface topography between laser treated and sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) treated implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Laser-treated implants (experimental group) and SLA-treated implants (control group) 8 mm in length and 3.4 mm in diameter were inserted into both sides of the tibiae of 12 rabbits. Surface analysis was accomplished using a field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM; Hitachi S-4800; Japan) under ${\times}25$, ${\times}150$ and ${\times}1,000$ magnification. Surface components were analyzed using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). Rabbits were sacrificed after a 6-week healing period. The removal torque was measured using the MGT-12 digital torque meter (Mark-10 Co., Copiague, NY, USA). RESULTS. In the experimental group, the surface analysis showed uniform porous structures under ${\times}25$, ${\times}150$ and ${\times}1,000$ magnification. Pore sizes in the experimental group were 20-40 mm and consisted of numerous small pores, whereas pore sizes in the control group were 0.5-2.0 mm. EDS analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups. The mean removal torque in the laser-treated and the SLA-treated implant groups were 79.4 Ncm (SD = 20.4; range 34.6-104.3 Ncm) and 52.7 Ncm (SD = 17.2; range 18.7-73.8 Ncm), respectively. The removal torque in the laser-treated surface implant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P=.004). CONCLUSION. In this study, removal torque values were significantly higher for laser-treated surface implants than for SLA-treated surface implants.
Keywords
Sandblasted large-grit acid-etched; Laser treatment; Removal torque; Scanning electron microscope; Energy dispersive spectroscopy;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindstrom J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52:155-70.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Roberts WE. Fundamental principles of bone physiology, metabolism and loading. In Naert I, van Steengerghe D, Worthington P, eds. Osseointegration in oral rehabilitation. Carol Stream, IL, Quintessence; 1993. p. 163-4.
3 Carlsson L, Rostlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T. Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:21-4.
4 Gotfredsen K, Nimb L, Hjorting-Hansen E, Jensen JS, Holmen A. Histomorphometric and removal torque analysis for TiO2-blasted titanium implants. An experimental study on dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:77-84.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Piattelli A, Scarano A. Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:668-74.
6 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Ferguson SJ, Langhoff JD, Voelter K, von Rechenberg B, Scharnweber D, Bierbaum S, Schnabelrauch M, Kautz AR, Frauchiger VM, Mueller TL, van Lenthe GH, Schlottig F. Biomechanical comparison of different surface modifications for dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23: 1037-46.
8 Kang SH, Cho SA. Comparison of removal torques for lasertreated titanium implants with anodized implants. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22:1491-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Hofmann AA, Bloebaum RD, Bachus KN. Progression of human bone ingrowth into porous-coated implants. Rate of bone ingrowth in humans. Acta Orthop Scand 1997;68:161-6.   DOI
10 Hall J, Miranda-Burgos P, Sennerby L. Stimulation of directed bone growth at oxidized titanium implants by macroscopic grooves: an in vivo study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005;7:S76-82.   DOI
11 Gaggl A, Schultes G, Muller WD, Karcher H. Scanning electron microscopical analysis of laser-treated titanium implant surfaces--a comparative study. Biomaterials 2000;21:1067-73.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Mangano C, Perrotti V, Iezzi G, Scarano A, Mangano F, Piattelli A. Bone response to modified titanium surface implants in nonhuman primates (Papio ursinus) and humans: histological evaluation. J Oral Implantol 2008;34:17-24.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Schwartz Z, Martin JY, Dean DD, Simpson J, Cochran DL, Boyan BD. Effect of titanium surface roughness on chondrocyte proliferation, matrix production, and differentiation depends on the state of cell maturation. J Biomed Mater Res 1996;30:145-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Hallgren C, Reimers H, Chakarov D, Gold J, Wennerberg A. An in vivo study of bone response to implants topographically modified by laser micromachining. Biomaterials 2003; 24:701-10.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Cho SA, Jung SK. A removal torque of the laser-treated titanium implants in rabbit tibia. Biomaterials 2003;24:4859-63.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Kang SH, Cho SA. Comparison of removal torques for lasertreated titanium implants with anodized implants. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22:1491-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Palmquist A, Emanuelsson L, Branemark R, Thomsen P. Biomechanical, histological and ultrastructural analyses of laser micro- and nano-structured titanium implant after 6 months in rabbit. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2011;97:289-98.
18 Han CH, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Quantitative and qualitative investigations of surface enlarged titanium and titanium alloy implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:1-10.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Rong M, Zhou L, Gou Z, Zhu A, Zhou D. The early osseointegration of the laser-treated and acid-etched dental implants surface: an experimental study in rabbits. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2009;20:1721-8.   DOI
20 Sennerby L, Thomsen P, Ericson LE. Early tissue response to titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical bone. Part I. Light microscopic obserrvations. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1993;4:240-50.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Wie H, Hero H, Solheim T. Hot isostatic pressing-processed hydroxyapatite-coated titanium implants: light microscopic and scanning electron microscopy investigations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:837-44.
22 Klokkevold PR, Nishimura RD, Adachi M, Caputo A. Osseointegration enhanced by chemical etching of the titanium surface. A torque removal study in the rabbit. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8:442-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Marin C, Bonfante EA, Granato R, Suzuki M, Granjeiro JM, Coelho PG. The effect of alterations on resorbable blasting media processed implant surfaces on early bone healing: a study in rabbits. Implant Dent 2011;20:167-77.   DOI   ScienceOn