In vivo comparison between the effects of chemically modified hydrophilic and anodically oxidized titanium surfaces on initial bone healing.
10.5051/jpis.2015.45.3.94
- Author:
Hyo Jung LEE
1
;
Il Hyung YANG
;
Seong Kyun KIM
;
In Sung YEO
;
Taek Ka KWON
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Animal experimentation;
Dental implants;
Histology;
Osseointegration
- MeSH:
Animal Experimentation;
Animals;
Chemistry;
Dental Implants;
Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions;
Microscopy, Confocal;
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning;
Osseointegration;
Rabbits;
Spectrum Analysis;
Tibia;
Titanium*
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2015;45(3):94-100
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the combined effects of physical and chemical surface factors on in vivo bone responses by comparing chemically modified hydrophilic sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (modSLA) and anodically oxidized hydrophobic implant surfaces. METHODS: Five modSLA implants and five anodized implants were inserted into the tibiae of five New Zealand white rabbits (one implant for each tibia). The characteristics of each surface were determined using field emission scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectroscopy, and confocal laser scanning microscopy before the installation. The experimental animals were sacrificed after 1 week of healing and histologic slides were prepared from the implant-tibial bone blocks removed from the animals. Histomorphometric analyses were performed on the light microscopic images, and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area (BA) ratios were measured. Nonparametric comparison tests were applied to find any significant differences (P<0.05) between the modSLA and anodized surfaces. RESULTS: The roughness of the anodized surface was 1.22 +/- 0.17 microm in Sa, which was within the optimal range of 1.0-2.0 microm for a bone response. The modSLA surface was significantly rougher at 2.53 +/- 0.07 microm in Sa. However, the modSLA implant had significantly higher BIC than the anodized implant (P=0.02). Furthermore, BA ratios did not significantly differ between the two implants, although the anodized implant had a higher mean value of BA (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the hydrophilicity of the modSLA surface may have a stronger effect on in vivo bone healing than optimal surface roughness and surface chemistry of the anodized surface.
