Cargando…

Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study

The surface modifications of titanium dental implants play important roles in the enhancement of osseointegration. The objective of the present study was to test two different implant surface treatments on a rabbit model to investigate the osseointegration. The tested surfaces were: a) acid-etched s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio, Ortiz-García, Ivan, Jiménez-Guerra, Alvaro, Monsalve-Guil, Loreto, Muñoz-Guzón, Fernando, Perez, Roman A., Gil, F. Javier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6651692/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31277204
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms20133267
_version_ 1783438406330613760
author Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio
Ortiz-García, Ivan
Jiménez-Guerra, Alvaro
Monsalve-Guil, Loreto
Muñoz-Guzón, Fernando
Perez, Roman A.
Gil, F. Javier
author_facet Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio
Ortiz-García, Ivan
Jiménez-Guerra, Alvaro
Monsalve-Guil, Loreto
Muñoz-Guzón, Fernando
Perez, Roman A.
Gil, F. Javier
author_sort Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio
collection PubMed
description The surface modifications of titanium dental implants play important roles in the enhancement of osseointegration. The objective of the present study was to test two different implant surface treatments on a rabbit model to investigate the osseointegration. The tested surfaces were: a) acid-etched surface with sandblasting treatment (SA) and b) an oxidized implant surface (OS). The roughness was measured by an interferometeric microscope with white light and the residual stress of the surfaces was measured with X-ray residual stress Bragg–Bentano diffraction. Six New Zealand white rabbits were used for the in vivo study. Implants with the two different surfaces (SA and OS) were inserted in the femoral bone. After 12 weeks of implantation, histological and histomorphometric analyses of the blocks containing the implants and the surrounding bone were performed. All the implants were correctly implanted and no signs of infection were observed. SA and OS surfaces were both surrounded by newly formed trabeculae. Histomorphometric analysis revealed that the bone–implant contact % (BIC) was higher around the SA implants (53.49 ± 8.46) than around the OS implants (50.94 ± 16.42), although there were no significant statistical differences among them. Both implant surfaces (SA and OS) demonstrated a good bone response with significant amounts of newly formed bone along the implant surface after 12 weeks of implantation. These results confirmed the importance of the topography and physico–chemical properties of dental implants in the osseointegration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6651692
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66516922019-08-08 Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio Ortiz-García, Ivan Jiménez-Guerra, Alvaro Monsalve-Guil, Loreto Muñoz-Guzón, Fernando Perez, Roman A. Gil, F. Javier Int J Mol Sci Communication The surface modifications of titanium dental implants play important roles in the enhancement of osseointegration. The objective of the present study was to test two different implant surface treatments on a rabbit model to investigate the osseointegration. The tested surfaces were: a) acid-etched surface with sandblasting treatment (SA) and b) an oxidized implant surface (OS). The roughness was measured by an interferometeric microscope with white light and the residual stress of the surfaces was measured with X-ray residual stress Bragg–Bentano diffraction. Six New Zealand white rabbits were used for the in vivo study. Implants with the two different surfaces (SA and OS) were inserted in the femoral bone. After 12 weeks of implantation, histological and histomorphometric analyses of the blocks containing the implants and the surrounding bone were performed. All the implants were correctly implanted and no signs of infection were observed. SA and OS surfaces were both surrounded by newly formed trabeculae. Histomorphometric analysis revealed that the bone–implant contact % (BIC) was higher around the SA implants (53.49 ± 8.46) than around the OS implants (50.94 ± 16.42), although there were no significant statistical differences among them. Both implant surfaces (SA and OS) demonstrated a good bone response with significant amounts of newly formed bone along the implant surface after 12 weeks of implantation. These results confirmed the importance of the topography and physico–chemical properties of dental implants in the osseointegration. MDPI 2019-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6651692/ /pubmed/31277204 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms20133267 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 Communication
Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio
Ortiz-García, Ivan
Jiménez-Guerra, Alvaro
Monsalve-Guil, Loreto
Muñoz-Guzón, Fernando
Perez, Roman A.
Gil, F. Javier
Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study
title Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study
title_full Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study
title_fullStr Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study
title_short Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study
title_sort comparison between sandblasted acid-etched and oxidized titanium dental implants: in vivo study
topic Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6651692/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31277204
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms20133267
work_keys_str_mv AT velascoortegaeugenio comparisonbetweensandblastedacidetchedandoxidizedtitaniumdentalimplantsinvivostudy
AT ortizgarciaivan comparisonbetweensandblastedacidetchedandoxidizedtitaniumdentalimplantsinvivostudy
AT jimenezguerraalvaro comparisonbetweensandblastedacidetchedandoxidizedtitaniumdentalimplantsinvivostudy
AT monsalveguilloreto comparisonbetweensandblastedacidetchedandoxidizedtitaniumdentalimplantsinvivostudy
AT munozguzonfernando comparisonbetweensandblastedacidetchedandoxidizedtitaniumdentalimplantsinvivostudy
AT perezromana comparisonbetweensandblastedacidetchedandoxidizedtitaniumdentalimplantsinvivostudy
AT gilfjavier comparisonbetweensandblastedacidetchedandoxidizedtitaniumdentalimplantsinvivostudy