Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한악안면성형재건외과학회)
권호 표지

HISTOMORPHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF OSTEOGENESIS WITH BRUSHITE IMPLANT SURFACES IN DOGS

성견에서 거친 표면을 가지는 임플란트에서 골형성에 관한 조직형태계측학적인 평가

  • Moon, Chul-Woong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Su-Gwan (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Hak-Kyun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Moon, Seong-Yong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Lim, Sung-Chul (Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Chosun University) ;
  • Oh, Ji-Su (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Baik, Sung-Mun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 문철웅 (조선대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 김수관 (조선대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 김학균 (조선대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 문성용 (조선대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 임성철 (조선대학교 의과대학 병리학교실) ;
  • 오지수 (조선대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 백성문 (조선대학교 치과대학 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Published : 2008.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of smooth and brushite-coated implant surfaces in dogs. The first through fourth mandibular premolars were extracted from eight young adult dogs. Twelve weeks after extraction. implantation was performed at the extraction sites. In total, 40 implant fixtures were implanted in the dog mandibles. Twenty machined implants served as controls and twenty brushite-coated surfaces served as tests. Dogs were sacrificed 2 and 4 weeks after implantation. The hemi-mandibles were obtained and processed histologically to obtain non-decalcified sections. Longitudinal sections of each implant were made and analyzed using light microscopy. The overall implant success rate was 83.3%. Histomorphometrically. the experimental group had a better percentage of bone-implant contact than the control group (p<0.05) and there was a significant difference between the 2- and 4-week groups after implantation (p<0.05) Our results suggest that the implant surface morphology influences the increase in peri-implant osteogenesis in the early period of peri-implant healing.

Keywords

References

  1. Branemark PI, Adell R, Breine U et al : Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 3 : 81, 1969 https://doi.org/10.3109/02844316909036699
  2. Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA et al : Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 52 : 155, 1981 https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678108991776
  3. Breme J, Steinhauser E, Paulus G : Commercially pure titanium Steinhauser plate-screw system for maxillofacial surgery. Biomaterials 9 : 310, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(88)90024-5
  4. Browne M, Gregson PJ : Effect of mechanical surface pretreatment on metal ion release. Biomaterials 21 : 385, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00200-8
  5. Albreksson T, Hansson HA : An ultrastructural characterization of the interface between bone and sputtered titanium or stainless steel surfaces. Biomaterials 7 : 201, 1986 https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(86)90103-1
  6. Shirakura M, Fujii N, Ohnishi H et al : Tissue response to titanium implantation in the rat maxilla, with special reference to the effects of surface conditions on bone formation. Clin Oral Implants Res 14 : 687, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00960.x
  7. Franchi M, Fini M, Martini D et al : Biological fixation of endosseous implants. Micron 36 : 665, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2005.05.010
  8. Vercaigne S, Wolke JGC, Naert I et al : Histomorphometrical and mechanical evaluation of titanium plasma-sprayed-coated implants placed in the cortical bone of goats. J Biomed Mater Res 41 : 41, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199807)41:1<41::AID-JBM5>3.0.CO;2-Q
  9. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S et al : Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 25 : 889, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820250708
  10. Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A et al : Bone response to unloaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acidetched surface : A histomorphometric study in the canine mandible. J Biomed Mater Res 40 : 1, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199804)40:1<1::AID-JBM1>3.0.CO;2-Q
  11. Deporter DA, Watson PA, Pilliar RM et al : A histological comparison in the dog of porous-coated vs. threaded dental implants. J Dent Res 69 : 1138, 1990 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345900690050401
  12. Weinlaender M, Kenney EB, Lekovic V et al : Histomorphometry of bone apposition around three types of endosseous dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implnats 7 : 491, 1992
  13. Meyer U, Joos U, Mythili J et al : Ultrastructural characterization of the implant/bone interface of immediately loaded dental implants. Biomaterials 25 : 1959, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.070
  14. Albrektsson T : Direct bone anchorage of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 50 : 255, 1983 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90027-6
  15. Parr GR, Gardner LK, Toth RW : Titanium: the mystery metal of implant dentistry. Dental materials aspects. J Prosthet Dent 54 : 410, 1985 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90562-1
  16. Sykaras N, Iacopino AM, Marker VA et al : Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies :Their effect in osseointegration. A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15 : 675, 2000
  17. Shirakura M, Fujii N, Ohnishi H et al : Tissue response to titanium implatation in the rat maxilla, with special reference to the effect of surface conditions on bone formation. Clin Oral Implants Res 14 : 687, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00960.x
  18. Zechner W, Tangl S, Furst G et al : Osseous healing characteristics of three different implant types. A histologic and histomorphometric study in mini-pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 14 : 150, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140203.x
  19. Bowers KT, Keller JC, Randolph BA et al : Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 7 : 302, 1992
  20. Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M et al : Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 28 : 2, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0002:BRTMAR>2.3.CO;2
  21. Wataha JC : Materials for endosseous dental implants. J Oral Rehabil 23 : 79, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1996.tb01214.x
  22. Lacefield WR : Current status of ceramic coatings for dental implants. Implant Dent 7 : 315, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199807040-00010
  23. Hench LI, Wilson J : Surface-active biomaterials. Science 226 : 630, 1984 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6093253