Browse > Article

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

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)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons / v.31, no.1, 2005 , pp. 46-54 More about this Journal
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
Implant surface; Osseointegration; Poor quality bone;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
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   PUBMED
3 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
4 Block MS, Kent JN, Kay JF : Evaluation of hydroxyapatite-coated titanium dental implants in dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987; 45:601-607   DOI   ScienceOn
5 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   DOI   PUBMED
6 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   DOI
7 Bryant SR : The effect of age, jaw site, and bone conditions on oral implant outcomes. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:470-490
8 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
9 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   DOI   ScienceOn
10 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
11 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   DOI   ScienceOn
12 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
13 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
14 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
15 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   DOI   ScienceOn
16 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
17 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   DOI   ScienceOn
18 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   DOI   ScienceOn
19 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   DOI   PUBMED
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   DOI
21 Branemark PI : Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410   DOI   ScienceOn
22 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
23 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
24 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
25 Misch CE : Comtemporary Implant Dentistry. Mosby Co. 1999;109-155
26 Cheang P, Khor KA : Addressing processing problems associated with plasma spraying of hydroxyapatite coatings. Biomaterials 1996;17:537-544   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Ricci JL, Kummer FJ, Alexander H : Embedded particulate contaminants in textured metal implants surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 1992;3:225-230
28 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
29 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   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K : Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-552   DOI   ScienceOn