Comparative study of osseointegration of 4 different surfaced implants in the tibia of dogs.
- Author:
Who Suk HONG
1
;
Tae Hee KIM
;
Seong Hee RYU
;
Min Suk KOOK
;
Hong Ju PARK
;
Hee Kyun OH
Author Information
1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Korea. hkoh@chonnam.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Implant surface;
Osseointegration;
Poor quality bone
- MeSH:
Adult;
Animals;
Bone Marrow;
Dogs*;
Humans;
Osseointegration*;
Tibia*
- From:Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
2005;31(1):46-54
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: This study was performed in order to compare the osseointegration of 4 different surfaced implants in the dog's tibia which has thick dense cortical bone and loose marrow space. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four mongrel dogs and four different surface types of implants, smooth surfaced AVANA implants, RBM surfaced AVANA implants, HA-coated Steri-Oss implants and SLA Bicon implants, were used in this study. The animals were divided into 4 groups on the basis of implant surface characteristics: Control group, RBM group, HA group, and SLA group. Three implants of each group were installed into the metaphysis of tibia of adult dogs. The animals were sacrificed at 8 weeks after implantation. The undecalcified specimens were prepared for histological examination and histomorphometric analysis of implant-bone contact ratios. RESULTS: Radiographically and histologically good osseointegration of implant was observed in the dense cortical bone, but poor osseointegration was observed in the marrow space. Histologically more bone apposition to implant surface was found in rough surfaced groups than the smooth surfaced, Control group. In histomorphometric findings of cortical bone the average bone-implant contact ratios of HA group (95.4%, p<0.01), RBM group (87.1%, p<0.05), and SLA group (86.0%, p<0.05) were significantly higher than that of Control group (75.9%). In marrow space the average bone-implant contact ratios of HA group (76.1%, p<0.01) and SLA group (45.4%, p<0.05) were significantly higher than that of Control group (29.6%). The ratio of RBM group was higher than that of Control group but there was no significantly difference between RBM group and Control group. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the rough surfaced implants can obtain the better osseointegration than the smooth surfaced implant in the cortical and marrow space and that HA-coated implants can obtain the best osseointegration in the marrow space among them.
