Cargando…

Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study

Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform an in vivo histological comparative evaluation of bone formation around titanium (machined and treated surface) and zirconia implants. For the present study were used 50 commercially pure titanium implants grade IV, being that 25 implants with a machi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre, Prados-Frutos, Juan Carlos, Prados-Privado, María, Calvo-Guirado, José Luis, Aramburú Júnior, Jaime, Pérez-Díaz, Leticia, Mazón, Patricia, Aragoneses, Juan Manuel, De Aza, Piedad N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6471506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30875729
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12060856
_version_ 1783412044571082752
author Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre
Prados-Frutos, Juan Carlos
Prados-Privado, María
Calvo-Guirado, José Luis
Aramburú Júnior, Jaime
Pérez-Díaz, Leticia
Mazón, Patricia
Aragoneses, Juan Manuel
De Aza, Piedad N.
author_facet Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre
Prados-Frutos, Juan Carlos
Prados-Privado, María
Calvo-Guirado, José Luis
Aramburú Júnior, Jaime
Pérez-Díaz, Leticia
Mazón, Patricia
Aragoneses, Juan Manuel
De Aza, Piedad N.
author_sort Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre
collection PubMed
description Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform an in vivo histological comparative evaluation of bone formation around titanium (machined and treated surface) and zirconia implants. For the present study were used 50 commercially pure titanium implants grade IV, being that 25 implants with a machined surface (TiM group), 25 implants with a treated surface (TiT group) and, 25 implants were manufactured in pure zirconia (Zr group). The implants (n = 20 per group) were installed in the tibia of 10 rabbits. The implants distribution was randomized (n = 3 implants per tibia). Five implants of each group were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and an optical laser profilometer for surface roughness characterization. Six weeks after the implantation, 10 implants for each group were removed in counter-torque for analysis of maximum torque value. The remaining samples were processed, included in historesin and cut to obtain non-decalcified slides for histomorphological analyses and histomorphometric measurement of the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC%). Comparisons were made between the groups using a 5% level of significance (p < 0.05) to assess statistical differences. The results of removal torque values (mean ± standard deviation) showed for the TiM group 15.9 ± 4.18 N cm, for TiT group 27.9 ± 5.15 N cm and for Zr group 11.5 ± 2.92 N cm, with significant statistical difference between the groups (p < 0.0001). However, the BIC% presented similar values for all groups (35.4 ± 4.54 for TiM group, 37.8 ± 4.84 for TiT group and 34.0 ± 6.82 for Zr group), with no statistical differences (p = 0.2171). Within the limitations of the present study, the findings suggest that the quality of the new bone tissue formed around the titanium implants present a superior density (maturation) in comparison to the zirconia implants.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6471506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64715062019-04-27 Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre Prados-Frutos, Juan Carlos Prados-Privado, María Calvo-Guirado, José Luis Aramburú Júnior, Jaime Pérez-Díaz, Leticia Mazón, Patricia Aragoneses, Juan Manuel De Aza, Piedad N. Materials (Basel) Article Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform an in vivo histological comparative evaluation of bone formation around titanium (machined and treated surface) and zirconia implants. For the present study were used 50 commercially pure titanium implants grade IV, being that 25 implants with a machined surface (TiM group), 25 implants with a treated surface (TiT group) and, 25 implants were manufactured in pure zirconia (Zr group). The implants (n = 20 per group) were installed in the tibia of 10 rabbits. The implants distribution was randomized (n = 3 implants per tibia). Five implants of each group were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and an optical laser profilometer for surface roughness characterization. Six weeks after the implantation, 10 implants for each group were removed in counter-torque for analysis of maximum torque value. The remaining samples were processed, included in historesin and cut to obtain non-decalcified slides for histomorphological analyses and histomorphometric measurement of the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC%). Comparisons were made between the groups using a 5% level of significance (p < 0.05) to assess statistical differences. The results of removal torque values (mean ± standard deviation) showed for the TiM group 15.9 ± 4.18 N cm, for TiT group 27.9 ± 5.15 N cm and for Zr group 11.5 ± 2.92 N cm, with significant statistical difference between the groups (p < 0.0001). However, the BIC% presented similar values for all groups (35.4 ± 4.54 for TiM group, 37.8 ± 4.84 for TiT group and 34.0 ± 6.82 for Zr group), with no statistical differences (p = 0.2171). Within the limitations of the present study, the findings suggest that the quality of the new bone tissue formed around the titanium implants present a superior density (maturation) in comparison to the zirconia implants. MDPI 2019-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6471506/ /pubmed/30875729 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12060856 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre
Prados-Frutos, Juan Carlos
Prados-Privado, María
Calvo-Guirado, José Luis
Aramburú Júnior, Jaime
Pérez-Díaz, Leticia
Mazón, Patricia
Aragoneses, Juan Manuel
De Aza, Piedad N.
Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study
title Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study
title_full Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study
title_fullStr Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study
title_short Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study
title_sort biomechanical and histological analysis of titanium (machined and treated surface) versus zirconia implant materials: an in vivo animal study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6471506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30875729
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12060856
work_keys_str_mv AT gehrkesergioalexandre biomechanicalandhistologicalanalysisoftitaniummachinedandtreatedsurfaceversuszirconiaimplantmaterialsaninvivoanimalstudy
AT pradosfrutosjuancarlos biomechanicalandhistologicalanalysisoftitaniummachinedandtreatedsurfaceversuszirconiaimplantmaterialsaninvivoanimalstudy
AT pradosprivadomaria biomechanicalandhistologicalanalysisoftitaniummachinedandtreatedsurfaceversuszirconiaimplantmaterialsaninvivoanimalstudy
AT calvoguiradojoseluis biomechanicalandhistologicalanalysisoftitaniummachinedandtreatedsurfaceversuszirconiaimplantmaterialsaninvivoanimalstudy
AT aramburujuniorjaime biomechanicalandhistologicalanalysisoftitaniummachinedandtreatedsurfaceversuszirconiaimplantmaterialsaninvivoanimalstudy
AT perezdiazleticia biomechanicalandhistologicalanalysisoftitaniummachinedandtreatedsurfaceversuszirconiaimplantmaterialsaninvivoanimalstudy
AT mazonpatricia biomechanicalandhistologicalanalysisoftitaniummachinedandtreatedsurfaceversuszirconiaimplantmaterialsaninvivoanimalstudy
AT aragonesesjuanmanuel biomechanicalandhistologicalanalysisoftitaniummachinedandtreatedsurfaceversuszirconiaimplantmaterialsaninvivoanimalstudy
AT deazapiedadn biomechanicalandhistologicalanalysisoftitaniummachinedandtreatedsurfaceversuszirconiaimplantmaterialsaninvivoanimalstudy