English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives  The propose was to compare this new implant macrogeometry with a control implant with a conventional macrogeometry.    Materials and methods  Eighty-six conical implants were divided in two groups (n = 43 per group): group control (group CON) that were used conical implants with a conventional macrogeometry and, group test (group TEST) that were used implants with the new macrogeometry. The new implant macrogeometry show several circular healing cambers between the threads, distributed in the implant body. Three implants of each group were used to scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) analysis and, other eighty samples (n = 40 per group) were inserted the tibia of ten rabbit (n = 2 per tibia), determined by randomization. The animals were sacrificed (n = 5 per time) at 3-weeks (Time 1) and at 4-weeks after the implantations (Time 2). The biomechanical evaluation proposed was the measurement of the implant stability quotient (ISQ) and the removal torque values (RTv). The microscopical analysis was a histomorphometric measurement of the bone to implant contact (%BIC) and the SEM evaluation of the bone adhered on the removed implants.    Results  The results showed that the implants of the group TEST produced a significant enhancement in the osseointegration in comparison with the group CON. The ISQ and RTv tests showed superior values for the group TEST in the both measured times (3- and 4-weeks), with significant differences (p < 0.05). More residual bone in quantity and quality was observed in the samples of the group TEST on the surface of the removed implants. Moreover, the %BIC demonstrated an important increasing for the group TEST in both times, with statistical differences (in Time 1  p  = 0.0103 and in Time 2  p  < 0.0003).    Conclusions  Then, we can conclude that the alterations in the implant macrogeometry promote several benefits on the osseointegration process.

Can changes in implant macrogeometry accelerate the osseointegration process?: An in vivo experimental biomechanical and histological evaluations