Cargando…
Osseointegration of Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces. A Histological and Histomorphometric Study in the Rabbit
Titanium surface is an important factor in achieving osseointegration during the early wound healing of dental implants in alveolar bone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sandblasted-etched surface implants to investigate the osseointegration. In the present study, we used two different typ...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395172/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34445213 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22168507 |
_version_ | 1783744112753639424 |
---|---|
author | Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio Ortiz-Garcia, Iván Jiménez-Guerra, Alvaro Núñez-Márquez, Enrique Moreno-Muñoz, Jesús Rondón-Romero, José Luis Cabanillas-Balsera, Daniel Gil, Javier Muñoz-Guzón, Fernando Monsalve-Guil, Loreto |
author_facet | Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio Ortiz-Garcia, Iván Jiménez-Guerra, Alvaro Núñez-Márquez, Enrique Moreno-Muñoz, Jesús Rondón-Romero, José Luis Cabanillas-Balsera, Daniel Gil, Javier Muñoz-Guzón, Fernando Monsalve-Guil, Loreto |
author_sort | Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio |
collection | PubMed |
description | Titanium surface is an important factor in achieving osseointegration during the early wound healing of dental implants in alveolar bone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sandblasted-etched surface implants to investigate the osseointegration. In the present study, we used two different types of sandblasted-etched surface implants, an SLA™ surface and a Nanoblast Plus™ surface. Roughness and chemical composition were evaluated by a white light interferometer microscope and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, respectively. The SLA™ surface exhibited the higher values (Ra 3.05 μm) of rugosity compared to the Nanoblast Plus™ surface (Ra 1.78 μm). Both types of implants were inserted in the femoral condyles of ten New Zealand white rabbits. After 12 weeks, histological and histomorphometric analysis was performed. All the implants were osseointegrated and no signs of infection were observed. Histomorphometric analysis revealed that the bone–implant contact % (BIC) ratio was similar around the SLA™ implants (63.74 ± 13.61) than around the Nanoblast Plus™ implants (62.83 ± 9.91). Both implant surfaces demonstrated a favorable bone response, confirming the relevance of the sandblasted-etched surface on implant osseointegration. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8395172 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83951722021-08-28 Osseointegration of Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces. A Histological and Histomorphometric Study in the Rabbit Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio Ortiz-Garcia, Iván Jiménez-Guerra, Alvaro Núñez-Márquez, Enrique Moreno-Muñoz, Jesús Rondón-Romero, José Luis Cabanillas-Balsera, Daniel Gil, Javier Muñoz-Guzón, Fernando Monsalve-Guil, Loreto Int J Mol Sci Article Titanium surface is an important factor in achieving osseointegration during the early wound healing of dental implants in alveolar bone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sandblasted-etched surface implants to investigate the osseointegration. In the present study, we used two different types of sandblasted-etched surface implants, an SLA™ surface and a Nanoblast Plus™ surface. Roughness and chemical composition were evaluated by a white light interferometer microscope and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, respectively. The SLA™ surface exhibited the higher values (Ra 3.05 μm) of rugosity compared to the Nanoblast Plus™ surface (Ra 1.78 μm). Both types of implants were inserted in the femoral condyles of ten New Zealand white rabbits. After 12 weeks, histological and histomorphometric analysis was performed. All the implants were osseointegrated and no signs of infection were observed. Histomorphometric analysis revealed that the bone–implant contact % (BIC) ratio was similar around the SLA™ implants (63.74 ± 13.61) than around the Nanoblast Plus™ implants (62.83 ± 9.91). Both implant surfaces demonstrated a favorable bone response, confirming the relevance of the sandblasted-etched surface on implant osseointegration. MDPI 2021-08-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8395172/ /pubmed/34445213 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22168507 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio Ortiz-Garcia, Iván Jiménez-Guerra, Alvaro Núñez-Márquez, Enrique Moreno-Muñoz, Jesús Rondón-Romero, José Luis Cabanillas-Balsera, Daniel Gil, Javier Muñoz-Guzón, Fernando Monsalve-Guil, Loreto Osseointegration of Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces. A Histological and Histomorphometric Study in the Rabbit |
title | Osseointegration of Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces. A Histological and Histomorphometric Study in the Rabbit |
title_full | Osseointegration of Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces. A Histological and Histomorphometric Study in the Rabbit |
title_fullStr | Osseointegration of Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces. A Histological and Histomorphometric Study in the Rabbit |
title_full_unstemmed | Osseointegration of Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces. A Histological and Histomorphometric Study in the Rabbit |
title_short | Osseointegration of Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces. A Histological and Histomorphometric Study in the Rabbit |
title_sort | osseointegration of sandblasted and acid-etched implant surfaces. a histological and histomorphometric study in the rabbit |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395172/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34445213 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22168507 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT velascoortegaeugenio osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit AT ortizgarciaivan osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit AT jimenezguerraalvaro osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit AT nunezmarquezenrique osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit AT morenomunozjesus osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit AT rondonromerojoseluis osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit AT cabanillasbalseradaniel osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit AT giljavier osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit AT munozguzonfernando osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit AT monsalveguilloreto osseointegrationofsandblastedandacidetchedimplantsurfacesahistologicalandhistomorphometricstudyintherabbit |