Comparion of stability in titanium implants with different surface topographies in dogs.
- Author:
Nam Sook KIM
1
;
Mong Sook VANG
;
Hong So YANG
;
Sang Won PARK
;
Ha Ok PARK
;
Hyun Pil LIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Implant stability quotient (ISQ); Periotest value (PTV); Stability; Surface treatment; Titanium implant
- MeSH: Adult; Animals; Dental Implants; Dogs; Hot Temperature; Humans; Osteogenesis; Sensitivity and Specificity; Titanium
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2009;1(1):47-55
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A few of studies which compared and continuously measured the stability of various surface treated implants in the same individual had been performed. PURPOSE: We aim to find the clinical significance of surface treatments by observing the differences in the stabilization stages of implant stability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight different surface topographies of dental implants were especially designed for the present study. Machined surface implants were used as a control group. 4 nano-treated surface implants (20 nm TiO2 coating surface, heat-treated 80 nm TiO2 coating surface, CaP coating surface, heat treated CaP coating surface) and 3 micro-treated surface implants [resorbable blast media (RBM) surface, sandblast and acid-etched (SAE) surface, anodized RBM surface] were used as experiment groups. All 24 implants were placed in 3 adult dogs. Periotest(R) & ISQ values measured for 8 weeks and all animals were sacrificed at 8 weeks after surgery. Then the histological analyses were done. RESULTS: In PTV, all implants were stabilized except 1 failed implants. In ISQ values, The lowest stability was observed at different times for each individual. The ISQ values were showed increased tendency after 5 weeks in every groups. After 4 to 5 weeks, the values were stabilized. There was no statistical correlation between the ISQ values and PTV. In the histological findings, the bone formation was observed to be adequate in general and no differences among the 8 surface treated implants. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the difference in the stability of the implants was determined not by the differences in the surface treatment but by the individual specificity.
