• Title/Summary/Keyword: SLActive

Search Result 2, Processing Time 0.018 seconds

Comparison of removal torques of SLActive® implant and blasted, laser-treated titanium implant in rabbit tibia bone healed with concentrated growth factor application

  • Park, Sang-Hun;Park, Kyung-Soon;Cho, Sung-Am
    • The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
    • /
    • v.8 no.2
    • /
    • pp.110-115
    • /
    • 2016
  • PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the removal torques of a chemically modified SLActive implant and a blasted, laser-treated (BLT) implant, which were soaked in saline for 2 weeks after their surface modifications. The removal torques of the two implants were measured 4 weeks after their implantation into the bone defect area in rabbit tibias with concentrated growth factor (CGF) application. MATERIALS AND METHODS. To make artificial bone defects in the cortical layers of both tibias, an 8-mm diameter trephine bur was used. Then, prepared CGF was applied to the bony defect of the left tibia, and the bony defect of the right tibia was left unfilled. Four weeks later, the surgical sites of 16 rabbits were re-exposed. For 8 rabbits, the SLActive implants (Straumann, Switzerland) were inserted in the left tibia, and the BLT implants (CSM implant, Daegu, Korea) were inserted in the right tibia. For other rabbits, the BLT implants were inserted in the left tibia, and the SLActive implants were inserted in the right. Four weeks afger the insertion, torque removal was measured from 4 rabbits exterminated via $CO_2$ inhalation. RESULTS. No significant difference was observed between removal torques of the BLT implant and the SLActive implant (P>.05). CONCLUSION. It was found that BLT surface modification exhibited excellent osseointegration. In addition, CGF application did not affect the insertion and removal torque of the implants.

Bone healing dynamics associated with 3 implants with different surfaces: histologic and histomorphometric analyses in dogs

  • Lee, Jungwon;Yoo, Jung Min;Amara, Heithem Ben;Lee, Yong-Moo;Lim, Young-Jun;Kim, Haeyoung;Koo, Ki-Tae
    • Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
    • /
    • v.49 no.1
    • /
    • pp.25-38
    • /
    • 2019
  • Purpose: This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III $Active^{(R)}$), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III $Bioactive^{(R)}$), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution ($SLActive^{(R)}$). Methods: The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant $surface{\times}3$ healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO. Conclusions: Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.