The Influence of Micro and Macro-geometry in Term of Bone-implant Interface in Two Implant Systems: an Histomorphometrical Study

Overview

Journal Oral Implantol (Rome)

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2017 Jan 3

PMID 28042421

Citations 1

Authors

A Rocci

R Calcaterra

M Di Girolamo

M Rocci

C Rocci

L Baggi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Many factors could affect the osseous healing of implants such as surface topography of biomaterial, the status of the bone/implant site, implant loading conditions, surgical technique and implant design. The aim of this study was to analyze the BIC of 2 different implants systems characterized by different micro and macrogeometry, that were placed in the posterior maxillary and mandibular jaws of humans, clinically unloaded and retrieved for histomorphometric analyses after 12 weeks.

Material And Method: The patients were divided in two groups (Group I and II); group I was composed by 4 patients that each received in the posterior areas of mandible one type A implant [GTB-Plan1Health Amaro (UD) Italy] one type B implant (OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). Group II was composed by 3 patients that each received in the posterior areas of jawsbone one type A implant [GTB-Plan1Health Amaro (UD) Italy] one type B implant (OsseoSpeed Astra Tech, Dentsply Molndal, Sweden). After 12 weeks of healing all the implants of both groups were harvested with the peri-implant bone tissues. Osseointegration process was evaluated throughout measurements of BIC.

Results: No statistical significance differences were found among the mean percentage of BIC of Group I - type A were 66,51% 49,96% in Group I - type B, as well as among the mean percentage of BIC of Group II - type A were 43.7% 60.02% in Group II - type B.

Conclusions: Our results highlight that the mean percentage of BIC after 12 weeks from the implants placement without functional loading is not influenced by the composition of the implant surface.

Citing Articles

Effects of Gamma Radiation-Induced Crosslinking of Collagen Type I Coated Dental Titanium Implants on Osseointegration and Bone Regeneration.

Cho W, Kim S, Jung S, Kang S, Kim S, Hwang S Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(12).

PMID: 34199187 PMC: 8231814. DOI: 10.3390/ma14123268.

References

Diamanti M, Del Curto B, Barlattani A, Bollero P, Ottria L, Pedeferri M . Mechanical characterization of an innovative dental implant system. J Appl Biomater Biomech. 2010; 7(1):23-8. View

Lang N, Jepsen S . Implant surfaces and design (Working Group 4). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20 Suppl 4:228-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01771.x. View

Meredith N, Friberg B, Sennerby L, Aparicio C . Relationship between contact time measurements and PTV values when using the Periotest to measure implant stability. Int J Prosthodont. 1998; 11(3):269-75. View

Albrektsson T . Direct bone anchorage of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 50(2):255-61. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90027-6. View

Cooper L . A role for surface topography in creating and maintaining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84(5):522-34. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.111966. View

Ivanoff C, Widmark G, Johansson C, Wennerberg A . Histologic evaluation of bone response to oxidized and turned titanium micro-implants in human jawbone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18(3):341-8. View

Trisi P, Marcato C, Todisco M . Bone-to-implant apposition with machined and MTX microtextured implant surfaces in human sinus grafts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003; 23(5):427-37. View

Gargari M, Prete V, Pujia M, Ceruso F . Development of patient-based questionnaire about aesthetic and functional differences between overdentures implant-supported and overdentures tooth-supported. Study of 43 patients with a follow up of 1 year. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2013; 5(4):86-91. PMC: 3671817. View

Junker R, Dimakis A, Thoneick M, Jansen J . Effects of implant surface coatings and composition on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20 Suppl 4:185-206. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01777.x. View

10.

Baggi L, Di Girolamo M, Vairo G, Sannino G . Comparative evaluation of osseointegrated dental implants based on platform-switching concept: influence of diameter, length, thread shape, and in-bone positioning depth on stress-based performance. Comput Math Methods Med. 2013; 2013:250929. PMC: 3703879. DOI: 10.1155/2013/250929. View

11.

Depprich R, Zipprich H, Ommerborn M, Naujoks C, Wiesmann H, Kiattavorncharoen S . Osseointegration of zirconia implants compared with titanium: an in vivo study. Head Face Med. 2008; 4:30. PMC: 2614983. DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-4-30. View

12.

Sykaras N, Iacopino A, Marker V, Triplett R, Woody R . Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: their effect on osseointegration. A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15(5):675-90. View

13.

van Steenberghe D, De Mars G, Quirynen M, Jacobs R, Naert I . A prospective split-mouth comparative study of two screw-shaped self-tapping pure titanium implant systems. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 11(3):202-9. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011003202.x. View

14.

Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark P . A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981; 10(6):387-416. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4. View

15.

Rocci A, Martignoni M, Burgos P, Gottlow J, Sennerby L . Histology of retrieved immediately and early loaded oxidized implants: light microscopic observations after 5 to 9 months of loading in the posterior mandible. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003; 5 Suppl 1:88-98. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00020.x. View

16.

Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A . Oral implant surfaces: Part 2--review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17(5):544-64. View

17.

Tatullo M, Marrelli M, Falisi G, Rastelli C, Palmieri F, Gargari M . Mechanical influence of tissue culture plates and extracellular matrix on mesenchymal stem cell behavior: A topical review. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2015; 29(1):3-8. PMC: 5806742. DOI: 10.1177/0394632015617951. View

18.

Gargari M, Prete V, Pujia A, Ceruso F . Full-arch maxillary rehabilitation fixed on 6 implants. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2013; 6(1):1-4. PMC: 3755809. View

19.

Ottria L, Zavattini A, Ceruso F, Gargari M . Maxillo-facial prosthesis (P.M.F): in a case of oral-nasal communication post-surgery and post-radiotherapy. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2015; 7(2):46-50. PMC: 4302747. View

20.

Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A . Oral implant surfaces: Part 1--review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17(5):536-43. View