The effect of different surface treatment on the osseointegration and stability of implants.
- Author:
Seoung Wook YANG
1
;
Heon Song LIM
;
In Ho CHO
Author Information
1. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea. cho8511@dku.edu
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Sandblasted large grit acid etching;
Resobable blast media;
Implant stability;
Histomorphometric analyses;
Implant Stability Quotient;
Periotest(R) Value analyses
- MeSH:
Dental Implantation;
Dental Implants;
Osseointegration*;
Osteogenesis;
Rabbits;
Tibia;
Torque
- From:The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
2006;44(5):606-616
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: This experiment examined the effect of different surface treatment on the osseointegration and stability of implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, 40 each of machined, SLA and RBM implants, which are the most commonly used implants, were implanted into the tibia of 20 normal rabbits using OsseoCareTM. The rabbits were sacrificed after 1 week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 12 weeks for implant stability analysis, removal torque analysis, histologic and histomorphometric analysis. RESULT: ISQ showed significant difference between Machined and RBM at first week and at 4 weeks. There was significant difference between Machined and both SLA and RBM(p<0.05) but after 8 weeks there were no significant difference between each group. In the removal torque, RBM showd significantly higher values than SLA and Machined surface at 1st week. At 4th and 12th week, there was significant difference between Machined and SLA, RBM(p<0.05). In the bone to implant contact variable, there was no significant difference between each surface treatment method. In the Machined surface group, there was no significant difference between each time interval, but in SLA group, there were significant differences between the 1st week and 12th week. and in RBM group, there were significant differences between the 1st week and 8th, 12th week and between 4th and 12th week(p<0.05). The bone area showed significantly higher values in SLA and RBM compared to Machined surface 1st and 8th week and significantly higher values in SLA than Machined surface at the 4th week(p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The roughened surface of implants showed positive effect in the early stages of implantation and assisted in bone formation. After the bone formation stage, there was no statistical difference between Machined and roughened surface groups. In dental implantation, where initial stability is critical to the success of implants, the use of roughened surface implants should assist in reducing the healing period after implantation.
