» Articles » PMID: 30703182

Osseointegration of Superhydrophilic Implants Placed in Defect Grafted Bones

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2019 Feb 1
PMID 30703182
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Only limited information on the effect of implant surface hydrophilicity in conjunction with simultaneous bone augmentation is available. In this study, new bone growth around implants with a superhydrophilic modSLA (SLActive) and hydrophobic SLA (SLA) surface were compared in circumferential defects when grafted in conjunction with mineralized cancellous bone allograft (MCBA, maxgraft) or sintered bovine bone mineral (SBBM, cerabone).

Materials And Methods: The osseointegration and bone formation in circumferential defects in minipig mandibles around Straumann Roxolid, Ø 3.3 mm, length 8 mm; either SLA or SLActive, were evaluated. Following implant placement, the 2-mm circumferential defects around the implants were filled with MCBA or SBBM. Distance from implant shoulder to first bone-to-implant contact (f-BIC), percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC), and bone aggregate percentage (amount of new bone and remaining graft) within the defect area were evaluated after 8 weeks of healing.

Results: In the SBBM group, lingual fBIC and buccal BIC were significantly lower for SLA (mean -0.404 ± 0.579 mm for modSLA versus -1.191 ± 0.814 mm for SLA, P = .021 and mean 62.61% ± 9.49% for modSLA versus 34.67% ± 24.41% for SLA, P = .047, respectively). Bone aggregate percentage was significantly higher for modSLA versus SLA implants in SBBM (77.84% ± 6.93% versus 64.49% ± 13.12%; P = .045). The differences between implant surfaces in MCBA showed a similar trend but were less pronounced than in the SBBM group and did not reach a statistically significant level.

Conclusion: The results suggest that implants with a superhydrophilic modSLA surface are more conducive to faster osseointegration even in conjunction with simultaneous bone grafting procedures.

Citing Articles

Osseointegration of Anodized vs. Sandblasted Implant Surfaces in a Guided Bone Regeneration Acute Dehiscence-Type Defect: An In Vivo Experimental Mandibular Minipig Model.

Shahdad S, Rawlinson S, Razaghi N, Patankar A, Patel M, Roccuzzo M Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024; 36(1):127-141.

PMID: 39387129 PMC: 11701963. DOI: 10.1111/clr.14369.


Osseointegration Potential Assessment of Bone Graft Materials Loaded with Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Peri-Implant Bone Defects.

Tseng K, Shiu S, Hung C, Chan Y, Chee T, Huang P Int J Mol Sci. 2024; 25(2).

PMID: 38255941 PMC: 10815485. DOI: 10.3390/ijms25020862.


Dental Implants: Modern Materials and Methods of Their Surface Modification.

Sotova C, Yanushevich O, Kriheli N, Grigoriev S, Evdokimov V, Kramar O Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(23).

PMID: 38068127 PMC: 10707035. DOI: 10.3390/ma16237383.


First Clinical Case Report of a Xenograft-Allograft Combination for Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Using a Bovine Bone Substitute Material with Hyaluronate (Cerabone Plus) Combined with Allogeneic Bone Granules (Maxgraft).

Kloss F, Kammerer P, Kloss-Brandstatter A J Clin Med. 2023; 12(19).

PMID: 37834860 PMC: 10573600. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12196214.


Influence of loading and grafting on hard- and soft-tissue healing at immediately placed implants: An experimental study in minipigs.

Parvini P, Buser D, Pippenger B, Imber J, Stavropoulos A, Bellon B J Clin Periodontol. 2022; 50(2):232-241.

PMID: 36217692 PMC: 10092114. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13734.