Premium
Effect of a macroscopic groove on bone response and implant stability
Author(s) -
Yoon HyungIn,
Yeo InSung,
Yang JaeHo
Publication year - 2010
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.1600-0501.2010.01960.x
Subject(s) - groove (engineering) , implant , materials science , dentistry , orthodontics , biomedical engineering , medicine , surgery , metallurgy
Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a macroscopic groove on bone response and implant stability during the early stages of healing using a rabbit tibia model. Materials and methods: Anodized titanium implants with ( n =24) and without ( n =24) macroscopic grooves were prepared. A total of 12 rabbits were used and each received four implants: six rabbits with implants with macroscopic grooves (test group) and six rabbits with implants without macroscopic groves (control group). Histomorphometry, resonance frequency, and removal torque value were evaluated 2 and 6 weeks post‐implant‐insertion. Results: At 2 and 6 weeks, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the percentage of bone‐to‐implant contact ( P >0.05). At 6 weeks, the test group had significantly higher implant stability quotient values than the control group ( P <0.05). At 2 and 6 weeks, implants with grooves showed a significantly greater resistance to reverse torque than control implants ( P <0.05). Conclusion: The groove on the oxidized titanium surface may increase both resistance to shear load and adhesion at the bone–implant interface. A geometric feature such as a macroscopic groove may facilitate osseointegration and increase implant stability in various clinical conditions. Further studies are required to confirm whether the improvement in implant stability will enhance treatment success in humans. To cite this article:
Yoon H‐I, Yeo I‐S, Yang J‐H. Effect of a macroscopic groove on bone response and implant stability.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res . 21 , 2010; 1379–1385.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01960.x