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 | 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.