BACKGROUND: Scientific evidence in the field of implant dentistry of the past 20 years established that titanium rough surfaces have shown improved osseointegration rates. In a majority of dental implants, the surface microroughness was obtained by grit blasting and/or acid etching. The aim of the study was to evaluate in vivo two different highly hydrophilic surfaces at different experimental times. METHODS: Calcium-modified (CA) and SLActive surfaces were evaluated and a total of 18 implants for each type of surface were positioned into the rabbit articular femoral knee-joint in a split model experiment, and they were evaluated histologically and histomorphometrically at 15, 30, and 60 days of healing. RESULTS: Bone-implant contact (BIC) at the two-implant surfaces was significantly different in favor of the CA surface at 15 days (p = 0.027), while SLActive displayed not significantly higher values at 30 (p = 0.51) and 60 days (p = 0.061). CONCLUSION: Both implant surfaces show an intimate interaction with newly formed bone.

Bone Response to Two Dental Implants with Different Sandblasted/Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces: A Histological and Histomorphometrical Study in Rabbits.

Scarano A
;
Piattelli A;Lorusso F.
2017-01-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Scientific evidence in the field of implant dentistry of the past 20 years established that titanium rough surfaces have shown improved osseointegration rates. In a majority of dental implants, the surface microroughness was obtained by grit blasting and/or acid etching. The aim of the study was to evaluate in vivo two different highly hydrophilic surfaces at different experimental times. METHODS: Calcium-modified (CA) and SLActive surfaces were evaluated and a total of 18 implants for each type of surface were positioned into the rabbit articular femoral knee-joint in a split model experiment, and they were evaluated histologically and histomorphometrically at 15, 30, and 60 days of healing. RESULTS: Bone-implant contact (BIC) at the two-implant surfaces was significantly different in favor of the CA surface at 15 days (p = 0.027), while SLActive displayed not significantly higher values at 30 (p = 0.51) and 60 days (p = 0.061). CONCLUSION: Both implant surfaces show an intimate interaction with newly formed bone.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
8724951.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Research Article
Tipologia: PDF editoriale
Dimensione 5.69 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
5.69 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11564/691850
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 14
  • Scopus 33
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 25
social impact