» Articles » PMID: 38217802

Assessing Bone Formation on Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Implant Surfaces in a Murine Model Treated with Bisphosphonates

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the osseointegration of implants with hydrophobic (HFB) and hydrophilic (HFL) surfaces in a murine model of high-dose bisphosphonates (BPs).

Materials And Methods: Sixty-four rats were randomly allocated into four groups: control group with HFB implants (CG-HFB), control group with HFL implants (CG-HFL), BP group with HFB implants (BP-HFB), and BP group with HFL implants (BP-HFL). Animals were euthanized after 15 and 45 days (n=8). The dependent variables assessed were the removal torque (biomechanical analysis), the bone volume around the implants (%BV/TV) (microtomographic analysis), the bone-implant contact (%BIC), the bone between the threads (%BBT) (histomorphometric analysis), and the expression of bone metabolism markers (immunohistochemistry analysis).

Results: The CG-HFL and BP-HFL groups presented higher removal torque than the CG-HFB and BP-HFB implants. The %BIC of the CG-HFL surfaces was slightly higher than that of the CG-HFB implants. The BP-HFB and BP-HFL groups presented a higher %BIC than that of the CG-HFB and CG-HFL groups (p<0.001). BP therapy also increased the %BBT at both implant surfaces. Higher levels of ALP were observed in the matrix region of bone tissue on the HFL surfaces than on the HFB surfaces.

Conclusion: Both surfaces enable osseointegration in rats under BP therapy.

Clinical Relevance: The study demonstrates that hydrophobic (HFB) and hydrophilic (HFL) implant surfaces can promote osseointegration in rats undergoing bisphosphonate therapy. The HFL surfaces exhibited improved biomechanical performance, higher bone-implant contact, and increased bone volume, suggesting their potential clinical relevance for implant success in individuals on bisphosphonate treatment.

Citing Articles

Analysis of peri-implant bone tissue between hydrophilic and rough implant surfaces in spontaneously hypertensive rats treated with losartan.

Santos J, Mulinari-Santos G, de Souza Batista F, Gomes-Ferreira P, Palin L, Antoniali C J Appl Oral Sci. 2024; 32:e20230374.

PMID: 38922240 PMC: 11182640. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2023-0374.


Different Methods to Modify the Hydrophilicity of Titanium Implants with Biomimetic Surface Topography to Induce Variable Responses in Bone Marrow Stromal Cells.

Jacobs T, Dillon J, Cohen D, Boyan B, Schwartz Z Biomimetics (Basel). 2024; 9(4).

PMID: 38667238 PMC: 11048143. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics9040227.

References
1.
Lane N . Epidemiology, etiology, and diagnosis of osteoporosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194(2 Suppl):S3-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.047. View

2.
Tolia M, Zygogianni A, Kouvaris J, Meristoudis C, Margari N, Karakitsos P . The key role of bisphosphonates in the supportive care of cancer patients. Anticancer Res. 2014; 34(1):23-37. View

3.
Neto N, Spolidorio L, Andrade C, Bastos A, Guimaraes M, Marcantonio Jr E . Experimental development of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws in rodents. Int J Exp Pathol. 2013; 94(1):65-73. PMC: 3575875. DOI: 10.1111/iep.12007. View

4.
Tella S, Gallagher J . Prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2013; 142:155-70. PMC: 4187361. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2013.09.008. View

5.
Hughes D, Wright K, Uy H, Sasaki A, Yoneda T, Roodman G . Bisphosphonates promote apoptosis in murine osteoclasts in vitro and in vivo. J Bone Miner Res. 1995; 10(10):1478-87. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.5650101008. View