Browse > Article

Removal Torque and Histomorphometric Investigation of Surface Modified Commercial Implants: An Experimental Study in the Rabbit Tibia  

Park, Jong-Hyun (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Kangnung National University)
Kim, Dae-Gon (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Kangnung National University)
Cho, Lee-Ra (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Kangnung National University)
Park, Chan-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Kangnung National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science / v.24, no.1, 2008 , pp. 41-56 More about this Journal
Abstract
The methods of surface modification of commercial implants were various according to the manufacturer. Surface modification of implant may produce diverse physical and chemical surface characteristics resulted from the treatment method and treatment condition. As a result, the bone response might be different. Even though surface modified implants have been used clinically, most researches are focusing on the bone response of surface modified implants comparing to machined implants rather than surface modified commercial implants. This study compare and analyze bone responses of 4 surface modified commercial implants with different shapes and surfaces. Eighty surface modified commercial implants with 4 different surface characteristics were installed in the tibia of white Newzealand rabbits. Biomechanical stability tests and histomorphometric evaluation were done. The results were as follows: 1. Surface modified commercial implants showed stable osseointegration at 6 weeks after installation. 2. Histomorphometric evaluation showed that there was no significant differences in bone to implant contact among 4 different commercial titanium implants. In comparing the implants with different shape the measurement of bone growth in subcortical area would be more reliable than entire bone to implant contact length. 3. Resonance Frequency Analysis showed that there was no significant differences among 4 types of implants, even though they were significantly different in installation. 4. There was significant differences in interfacial shear strength among 4 type of implants. 5. It is difficult to observe accurate bone to implant interface using Micro-CT. However, it is possible to measure the entire contact length of the implant to the bone.
Keywords
histomorphometric evaluation; interfacial shear strength; Micro-CT; Resonance Frequency Analysis; surface modified commercial implant;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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;18:354-8
2 Ericsseon I, Johansson CB, Bystedt H, Norton MR. A histomorphometric evaluation of bone-to-implant contact on machine-prepared and roughened titanium dental implants. A pilot study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994;5:202-6   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Gottlander M, Albrektsson T. Histomorphometric analyses of hydroxyapatite-coated and uncoated titanium implants. The importance of the implant design. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992;3:71-6   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Feldman S, Boitel N, Weng D, Kohles SS, Stach RM. Five-year survival distributions of short-length (10 mm or less) machined -surfaced and Osseotitie implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6:16-23   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Rocci A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J. Immediate loading of Branemark System Ti-Unite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible: a randomized open-ended clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5:57-63
6 Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, Ti-Unite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19:319-28
7 Donath K, Breuner G. A method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attaced soft tissues: The Sage z-Schliff (sawing and grinding) technique. J Oral Patho. 1982;11:318-26   DOI
8 Johansson CB, Sennerby L, Albrektsson T. A removal torque and histomorphometric study of bone tissue reactions to commercially pure titanium and Vitallium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;6:437-41
9 Johansson CB, Albrektsson T. A removal torque and histomorphometric study of commercially pure niobium and titanium implants in rabbit bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991;2:24-9   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Carlsson L, Rostlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T. Removal torque for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988;3:21-4
11 Sennerby L, Miyamoto I. Insertion torque and RFA analysis of Ti-Unite and SLA implants. A study in the rabbit. Applied Osseointegration Res. 2001;1:31-33
12 Gotfredsen K, Karlsson U. A prospective 5-year study of fixed partial prostheses supported by implants with machined and TiO2-blasted surface. J Prosthodont. 2001;10:2-7   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Park CJ. Stability measurement on the implants of mandibular molar area using OsstellTM. J Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion. 2004;17:205-11
14 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
15 Kim JH, Han TS, Cho K, Kang SS, Kim G, Choi SH. Comparison of immediate and delayed implantation using the square-threaded and resorbable-blasted-media-treated surface implant system. In Vivo. 2007;21:55-9
16 Taborelli M, Jobin M, Francois P, Vaudaux P, Tonetti M, Szmukler-Moncler S. Influence of surface treatments developed fororal implants on the physical and biological properties of titanium. (I) Surface characterization. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8:208-16   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Lugero GG, de Falco Caparbo V, Guzzo ML, Konig B, Jorgetti V. Histomorphometric evaluation of titanium implants in osteoporotic rabbits. Implant Dent. 2000;9:303-9   DOI
18 Gottlow J, Johansson C, Albrecktsson T, Lundgren AK. Biomechanical and histologic evaluation of Ti-Unite and Osseotite implant surfaces in rabbits after 6weeks of healing. Applied Osseointegration Res. 2001;1:25-7
19 OsstellTM resonance frequencey analyser. Clinical Manual. Integration Diagnostics Ltd. Savedalen, Sweden. 2002
20 Wong M, Eulenberger J, Schenk R, Hunziker E. Effect of surface topology on the osseointegration of implant materials in trabecular bone. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29:1567-75   DOI
21 Larsson C, Thomsen P, Aronsson BO, Todahl M, Lausmaa J, Kasemo B, Ericson LE. Bone response to surface-modified titanium implants: studies on the early tissue response to machined and electropolished implants with different oxide thicknesses. Biomaterials. 1996;17:605-16   DOI   ScienceOn
22 De Leonardis D, Garg AK, Pecora GE, Andreana S. Osseointegration of rough acid-etched implants: One-year follow-up of placement of 100 Minimatic implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:65-73
23 Kurze P, Drysmann W, Knofler W. Anodic oxidation using spark discharge-a new surface treatment method for medical technology. Stomato DDR. 1986;36:549-54
24 Buser D, Nydegger T, Oxland T, Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Hirt HP, Snetivy D, Nolte LP. Interface shear strength of titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a biomechanical study in the maxilla of miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;45:75-83   DOI   ScienceOn
25 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 Maxilofac Implants. 1996;11:38-45
26 Perrin D, Szmukle-Moncler S, Echikou C, Pointaire P, Bernard JP.Bone response to alteration of surface topography and surface composition of sandblasted and acid etched (SLA) implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:465-9   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Albreksson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently and dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1:11-25
28 Cook SD, Kay JF, Thomas KA, Jarcho M. Interface mechanics and history of titanium for dental implant applications. Int J Oral Maxillofc Implants. 1987;2:15-22
29 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
30 Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Integration of screw implants in therabbit: a 1-year follow-up of removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1987;2:69-75
31 Park YS, Yi KY, Lee IS, Jung YC. Correlation between microtomography and histomorphometry for assessment of implant osseointegration. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16:156-60   DOI   ScienceOn
32 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;13:611-9
33 Fanuscu MI, Chang TL. Three-dimensional morphometric analysis of human cadaver bone: microstructural data from maxilla and mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15:213-8   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Meredith N, Shagaldi F, Alleyne D, Sennerby L, Cawley P. The application of resonance frequency measurements to study the stability of titanium implants during healing in the rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8:234-43   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50:399-410   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Gotfredsen K, Nimb L, Hjrting-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
37 Han Y, Xu K. Photoexcited formation of bone apatite-like coatings on micro-arc oxidized titanium. J Biomed Mater Res. 2004;71:608-14
38 Khang W, Feldman S, Hawley CE, Gunsolley J. A multi-center study comparing dual acid-etched and machined-surfaced implants in various bone qualities. J Periodontol. 2001;72:1384-90   DOI
39 Friberg B, Senneby L, Linden B, Grondahl K, Lekholm U. Stability measurements of on-stage Branemark implants during healing in mandibles. A clinical resonance frequency analysis study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999;28:266-72   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP, Cochran DL, Nolte LP. Removaltorque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13:611-9
41 Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegred prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49:843-848   DOI   ScienceOn
42 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;27:2-8
43 Inadome T, Hayashi K, Nakashima Y, Tsummura H, Sugioka Y. Comparison of bone-implant interface shear strength of hydroxy apatite-coated and alumina-coated metal implants. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29:19-24   DOI   ScienceOn
44 Ellingsen JE, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Holmen A. Improved retention and bone-to Implant contact with fluoride-modified titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:659-66
45 Gottlow J, Henry PJ, Tan AE, Allan BP, Hohansson C, Hall J. Biomechanical and histologic evaluation of Ti-Unite and Osseotite implant surfaces in dogs. Applied Osseointegration Res. 2001;1:28-30
46 Sennerby L, Wennerberg A. & Pasop F. A new microtomographic technique for non-invasiveevaluation of the bone structure around implants. Clinical Oral Implants Res. 2001;12:91-4   DOI   ScienceOn