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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |