Premium
Osseointegration of implants with dendrimers surface characteristics installed conventionally or with P iezosurgery ® . A comparative study in the dog
Author(s) -
Bengazi Franco,
Lang Niklaus P.,
Canciani Elena,
Viganò Paolo,
Velez Joaquin Urbizo,
Botticelli Daniele
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12082
Subject(s) - osseointegration , dendrimer , implant , dentistry , materials science , biomedical engineering , drill , chemistry , medicine , surgery , polymer chemistry , metallurgy
Aim The first aim of the present experiment was to compare bone healing at implants installed in recipient sites prepared with conventional drills or a piezoelectric device. The second aim was to compare implant osseointegration onto surfaces with and without dendrimers coatings. Material and Methods Six Beagles dogs were used in this study. Five implants with two different surfaces, three with a ZirTi ® surface (zirconia sand blasted, acid etched), and two with a ZirTi ® ‐modified surface with dendrimers of phosphoserine and polylysine were installed in the right side of the mandible. In the most anterior region (P2, P3), two recipient sites were prepared with drills, and one implant ZirTi ® surface and one coated with dendrimers implants were installed at random. In the posterior region (P4 and M1), three recipient sites were randomly prepared: two sites with a Piezosurgery ® instrument and one site with drill and two ZirTi ® surface and one coated with dendrimers implants installed. Three months after the surgery, the animals were sacrificed for histological analysis. Results No complications occurred during the healing period. Three implants were found not integrated and were excluded from analysis. However, n = 6 was obtained. The distance IS‐B at the buccal aspect was 2.2 ± 0.8 and 1.8 ± 0.5 mm, while IS‐C was 1.5 ± 0.9 and 1.4 ± 0.6 mm at the Piezosurgery ® and drill groups, respectively. Similar values were obtained between the dendrimers‐coated and ZirTi ® surface implants. The BIC% values were higher at the drill (72%) compared to the Piezosurgery ® (67%) sites. The BIC% were also found to be higher at the ZirTi ® (74%) compared to the dendrimers‐coated (65%) implants, the difference being statistically significant. Conclusion This study has revealed that oral implants may osseointegrate equally well irrespective of whether their bed was prepared utilizing conventional drills with abundant cooling or Piezosurgery ® . Moreover, the surface coating of implants with dendrimers phosphoserine and polylysine did not improve osseointegration.