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

The aim of this study was to perform an in vivo histological comparative evaluation of bone formation around titanium (machined and treated surface) and zirconia implants. For the present study were used 50 commercially pure titanium implants grade IV, being that 25 implants with a machined surface (TiM group), 25 implants with a treated surface (TiT group) and, 25 implants were manufactured in pure zirconia (Zr group). The implants ( n = 20 per group) were installed in the tibia of 10 rabbits. The implants distribution was randomized ( n = 3 implants per tibia). Five implants of each group were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and an optical laser profilometer for surface roughness characterization. Six weeks after the implantation, 10 implants for each group were removed in counter-torque for analysis of maximum torque value. The remaining samples were processed, included in historesin and cut to obtain non-decalcified slides for histomorphological analyses and histomorphometric measurement of the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC%). Comparisons were made between the groups using a 5% level of significance ( p &lt; 0.05) to assess statistical differences. The results of removal torque values (mean ± standard deviation) showed for the TiM group 15.9 ± 4.18 N cm, for TiT group 27.9 ± 5.15 N cm and for Zr group 11.5 ± 2.92 N cm, with significant statistical difference between the groups ( p &lt; 0.0001). However, the BIC% presented similar values for all groups (35.4 ± 4.54 for TiM group, 37.8 ± 4.84 for TiT group and 34.0 ± 6.82 for Zr group), with no statistical differences ( p = 0.2171). Within the limitations of the present study, the findings suggest that the quality of the new bone tissue formed around the titanium implants present a superior density (maturation) in comparison to the zirconia implants.

Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study