Premium
Osseointegration of Osseotite ® and machined‐surfaced titanium implants in membrane‐covered critical‐sized defects: a histologic and histometric study in dogs
Author(s) -
Veis Alexander A.,
Papadimitriou Serafim,
Trisi Paolo,
Tsirlis Anastasios T.,
Parissis Nikolaos A.,
Kenealy James N.
Publication year - 2007
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/j.1600-0501.2006.01316.x
Subject(s) - osseointegration , implant , materials science , titanium , dentistry , fixation (population genetics) , iliac bone , biomedical engineering , medicine , surgery , population , environmental health , metallurgy
The texture of an implant's surface can influence the rate and extent of bone fixation as expressed by the amount of linear bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC). The purpose of this study was to compare the bone density and linear BIC between Osseotite ® and machined‐surface implants placed in bony defects without graft material and covered by a membrane. Thirty 2 mm diameter, 10 mm length custom implants were prepared for this study having a ‘split surface,’ with one side having the acid‐etched surface and the opposite side having a machined surface. Defects were created in the iliac wing of three adult mongrel dogs where a 6‐mm‐diameter drill was used to generate a 5‐mm‐deep defect. The implants were inserted into the center of the defect with 5 mm secured into the bone leaving 5 mm free in the defect with a 2 mm gap between the implant and surrounding bone. Expanded polytetrafluroethelyene membranes were placed over the defect sites stabilized with Biotack ® pins. The healing times were 2, 3, and 5 months. Histologic and histometric analysis showed significantly lower BIC in the defect region as compared with the portion of implant placed into native bone for both implant surfaces in all groups. There was no difference in BIC values at 2‐ and 5‐month periods between the two surfaces in the regenerated area, while BIC values for Osseotite ® surfaces were significantly higher than the machined surfaces at 3 months' healing time. Changes in bone density, observed between the three groups, affected correspondingly the BIC values in both implant surfaces, the effect being more pronounced in the Osseotite ® surface.