Premium
Effects of Photodynamic Process ( PDP ) in Implant Osseointegration: A Histologic and Histometric Study in Dogs
Author(s) -
Faria Paulo Esteves Pinto,
Felipucci Daniela Nair Borges,
Simioni Andreza Ribeiro,
Primo Fernando Lucas,
Tedesco Antonio Cláudio,
Salata Luiz Antonio
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12204
Subject(s) - trephine , osseointegration , medicine , implant , bone healing , dentistry , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , photosensitivity , surgery , materials science , botany , optoelectronics , biology , genus
Background The combination between photosensitivity substances with laser or light‐emitting diode ( LED ) form the photodynamic therapy basis that consists of photosensitivity drug activated by low‐frequency light. This mechanism is used in soft tissue healing process to improve the oxygen tension leading to a fast revascularization. Purpose The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of photosensitivity drugs activated through LED on osseointegration process. Materials and Methods Eight mongrel dogs underwent implant therapy in four mandibular bone defects using 5.0 mm trephine drill on each side of the mandible. The defects were randomly filled up with (1) N ano emulsion, (2) liposome, (3) blood clot, and (4) autogenous bone. LED with visible and infrared light were applied after 48/72 postoperative hours on four dogs and after 96/120 postoperative hours in the other four dogs. All the animals were euthanized at 15 days after surgery. Ground sections slides were prepared from the experimental site for histomorphometry and histological analysis. Results No difference was detected in the following parameters: bone‐implant contact, bone inside the defect and crest level on LED 48/72. Significant difference was detected inside the defect when filled with autogenous bone ( p = .0238) on LED 96/120. When LED 48/72 and LED 96/120 were compared, significant higher bone formation was detected when autogenous bone on bone‐implant contact ( p = .0043) and bone inside the defect ( p = .0008) was used. Conclusion The use of photosensitivity drugs activated by LED demonstrated a tendency to stimulate bone formation, similar to autogenous bone graft on later time point.