타이타늄 임플랜트 시편 내부에 설치한 자석의 자성강도에 따른 골형성 변화

THE CHANGE OF BONE FORMATION ACCORDING TO MAGNETIC INTENSITY OF MAGNET PLACID INTO TITANIUM IMPLANT SPECIMENS

  • 황윤태 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이성복 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 최대균 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 최부병 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Hwang Yun-Tae (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University) ;
  • Lee Sung-Bok (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University) ;
  • Choi Dae-Gyun (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University) ;
  • Choi Boo-Byung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyung-Hee University)
  • 발행 : 2005.04.01

초록

Purpose. The purposes of this investigation were to discover the possibility of clinical application in the areas of dental implants and bone grafts by investigating the bone formation histologically around specimen which was depending on the intensity of magnetic field of neodymium magnet inside of the specimens. Material and method. 1. Measurement of magnetic intensity - placed the magnet inside of the specimen, and measured the intensity of magnetic field around the 1st thread and 3rd thread of specimen 20 times by using a Gaussmeter(Kanetec Co., Japan). 2. Surgical Procedure - Male rabbit was anesthetised by constant amount of Ketamine (0.25ml/kg) and Rompun (0.25ml/kg). After incising the flat part of tibia, and planted the specimens of titanium implant, control group was stitched without magnet, while experimental groups were placed a magnedisc 500(Aichi Steel Co., Japan) or magnedisc 800(Aichi Steel Co., Japan) into it, fixed by pattern resin and stitched. 3. Management after the surgery - In order to prevent it from the infection of bacteria and for antiinflammation, Gentamycin and Ketopro were injected during 1 week from operation day, and dressed with potadine. 4. Preparation of histomorphometric analysis - At 2, 4 and 8 weeks after the surgery, the animals were sacrificed by excessed Ketamine, and then, specimens were obtained including the operated part and some parts of tibia, and fixed it to 10% of PBS buffer solution. After embedding specimens in Technovit 1200 and B.P solution, made a H-E stain. Samples width was 75$\mu$m . In histological findings through the optical microscope and using Kappa image base program(Olympus Co. Japan), the bone contact ratio and bone area ratio of each parts of specimens were measured and analyzed. 5. Statistical analysis - Statistical analysis was accomplished with Mann Whitney U-test. Results and conclusion. 1. In histomorphometric findings, increased new bone formation was shown in both control & experimental groups through the experiment performed for 2, 4 & 8 weeks. After 4 weeks, more osteoblasts and osteoclasts with significant bone remodeling were shown in experimental groups. 2. In histomorphometric analysis, the bone contact ratios were 38.5% for experimental group 1, 29.5% for experimental group 2 and 11.9% for control group. Experimental groups were higher than control group(p<0.05) (Fig. 6, Table IV). The bone area ratios were 60.9% for experimental group 2, 46.4% for experimental group 1 and 36.0% for control group. There was no significantly statistical difference between experimental groups and control group(p<0.05) (Fig. 8, Table VII) 3. In comparision of the bone contact ratios at each measurement sites according to magnetic intensity, experimental group 2(5.6mT) was higher than control group at the 1st thread (p<0.05) and experimental group 1 (1.8mT) was higher than control group at the 3rd thread(p<0.05) (Fig. 7, Table V, VI). 4. In comparision of the bone area ratios at each measurement sites according to magnetic intensity, experimental group 2(5.6mT) was higher than control group and experimental group 1 (4.0mT) at the 1st thread(p<0.1) and experimental group 2(4.4mT) was higher than experimental group 1 (1.8mT) at the 3rd thread(p<0.1) (Fig. 9, Table IX, X). Experiment group 2 was largest, followed by experiment group l and control group at the 3rd thread of implant. There was a significant difference at the 1st thread of control group & experiment group 2, and at 1st thread & 3rd thread of experiment group 1 & 2, and not at control group experiment group 1.(p<0.1)

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Branomark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2
  2. EI Charkawi HG, EI Wakad MT, Naser ME. Modification of osseointegrated implants for distal-extention prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:469-72 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90046-F
  3. Scher ELC. The use of osseointegrated implants in long span fixed partial prosthesis: A case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:351-3
  4. Lewis SG, Beumer III J, Perri GR, Homburg WP. Single tooth implant supported restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:25-30
  5. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Bjesson G. Clinical Supported by Osseointegrated Implants: A retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:169-73
  6. Branernark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plastic Reconstr Surg 1981, 16:1-132
  7. Branernark PI, Zerb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co Inc. 1985
  8. Weinstein AM, Klawitter JJ, Cleveland TW. Amoss DC. Electrical stimulation of bone growth into porous $Al_2O_3$. Biomed Mater Res 1976;10:231-47 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820100205
  9. Salman NN. Park JB. Kenner GH, Vonrecum AF. Effect of electrical stimulation on bone growth into porous PMMA and Co-Cr-Mo alloy. Trans 11th Int Biomater Symp 1979;3:33
  10. Park JB, Young SO, Keener GH. Alveolar bone ingrowth into porous dental im-plants by electrical stimulation. In: Electrical properties of bone and cartilage, CT Brighton, J Black, S Pollack, Eds., New York: Grune and Stratton. pp.225-247
  11. Matsumoto H, Ochi M, Abiko Y, Hirose Y, Kaku T, Sakaguchi K. Pulsed electro-magnetic fields promote bone formation around dental implants inserted into the femur of rabbits. Clin Oral Impl Res 2000;11:354-60 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011004354.x
  12. Brighton CT, Black J, Friedenberg ZB, et al. A multicenter study of the treatment of non-union with constant current. J Bone Joint Surg 1981;63:2-13
  13. Basset CAL, Mitchell SN, Norton L, Pilla AA. A nonoperative salvage of surgically resistant pseudarthoses and nonunions by pulsing electromagnetic fields: a preliminary report. Clin Orthop 1977;1245:128-43
  14. Basset CAL, Pawluk RJ, Pilla AA. Augmentation of bone repair by inductively coupled electromagnetic fields. Science 1974;184:575-7 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.184.4136.575
  15. Cho YW, Choi BB, Lee SB. The effect of Magnetism(Neodymium) on Activity of Osteoblast. The Journal of Korean Acamedy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion 2003;19:186-93
  16. Lee SM, Lee SB, Choi BB. Effect of the magnetism(neodymium magnet) on growth factor receptors of osteoblast. The Journal of Korean Acamedy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion 2003;19:88-96
  17. Brighton CT, Magnusson PB. Electrically induced osteogenesis. Its clinical use in treating nonunion. In: Fukuda E, et al. et al. eds. Bioelectrical Repair and Growth. Niigata: Nisimura: 1985;3-19
  18. Yasuda I, Nagayama H, Kato T, et al. Fundamental problems in the treatment of fracture. J Kyoto Med Soc 1953;4:395-406
  19. Yasuda I. Piezoelectricity of living bone. J Kyoto Pref Univ Med 1953;53:325
  20. Fukada E, Yasuda I. On the piezoelectric effect of bone. J Physical Soc Jap 1957;12:1158-62 https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.12.1158
  21. Mark WO, Kenneth JM, Clinton TR. Effects of electromagnetic fields in experimental fracture repair. Clin Orthopedics & related Res 1998;355:90-104 https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199810000-00010
  22. Kubota K. Effect of electrical currents of alveolar bone defects. J Kyushu Dent Soc 1982;36:64-81
  23. Hayashikawa T. Effects of electrical stim-ulation on periodontal tissue regeneration in dogs. J Kyushu Dent Soc 1990;44:172-94
  24. Jacobs JD, Norton LA. Electrical stimulation of osteogenesis in pathological osseous defects. J Periodontol 1976;47:311-19 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1976.47.6.311
  25. Kawata T, Hirota K, Sumitani K, et al. A new orthodontic force system of magnetic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:241-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90418-5
  26. Darendeliler MA, Darendeliler A, Mandurino M. Clinical application of magnets in orthodontics and biological implications: a review. European J Orthod 1997;19:431-42 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/19.4.431
  27. Bassett CAL. Biophysical principles affecting bone structure. In: Bourne. ed. The Biochemistry and Physiology of Bone. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press 1971;1-76
  28. Zengo AN, Pawluk RJ, Bassett CAL. Stress-induced bioelectric potentials in the dentoalveolar complex. Am J Orthop 1973;64:17-27 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(73)90277-7
  29. Suzuki H. An experimental study of the micro electric current on the bone formation in Macaca irus. J Kyushu Dent Soc 1976;29:399-416
  30. Jacobs JD, Norton LA. Electrical stimulation of osteogenesis in pathological osseous defects. J Periodontal 1976;47:311-9 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1976.47.6.311
  31. Karaki R. Experimental study of internal remodeling and callus formation in mandible by electrical stimulation. J Kyushu Dent Soc 1979;32:590-608
  32. Woo KY, Kwon KR, Choi BB. The Effect of Electrical Stimulation on Osteoblast Surrounding Dental Implant. The Journal of Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion 2003;19:196-206
  33. Altay OT, Kutkam T, Koseoglu O, Tanyeri S. The biological effects of implanted magnetic fields on the .bone tissue of dog. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:345-9
  34. Yan QC, Tomita N, Ikada Y. Effects of static magnetic fields on bone formation of rat femurs. Med Eng Phys 1998;20:397-402 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4533(98)00051-4