Bone healing dynamics associated with 3 implants with different surfaces: histologic and histomorphometric analyses in dogs
10.5051/jpis.2019.49.1.25
- Author:
Jungwon LEE
1
;
Jung Min YOO
;
Heithem Ben AMARA
;
Yong Moo LEE
;
Young Jun LIM
;
Haeyoung KIM
;
Ki Tae KOO
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontics, One-Stop Specialty Center, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Bone-implant interface;
Bone remodeling;
Cell-material interactions;
Dental/endosteal implant;
In vivo
- MeSH:
Animals;
Bicuspid;
Bone Remodeling;
Bone-Implant Interface;
Dogs;
Durapatite;
Miners;
Osseointegration;
Osteoblasts;
Sodium Chloride;
Wettability
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2019;49(1):25-38
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active®), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive®), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive®). METHODS: The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant surface×3 healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.
