Premium
Effect of implant surface properties on peri‐implant bone healing: a histological and histomorphometric study in dogs
Author(s) -
AlHamdan Khalid,
AlMoaber Samar H.,
Junker Rüdiger,
Jansen John A.
Publication year - 2011
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.1600-0501.2010.02106.x
Subject(s) - implant , dentistry , peri , peri implantitis , osseointegration , medicine , bone healing , anatomy , surgery
Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare two types of implants, i.e. grit‐blasted and acid‐etched implants (SLActive ® ) with nano‐meter‐scale hydroxyapatite surface‐modified implants (NanoTite ™ ). Material and methods: For histological and histomorphometrical evaluation, 22 SLActive ® and 22 Nanotite ™ implants were inserted in eleven Beagle dogs. The animals were divided into three groups of healing (A: 2 weeks; B: 4 weeks and C: 8 weeks). Two, 4 and 8 weeks after implantation, the animals were sacrificed and bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC %), first implant–bone contact (1st BIC) as well as amount of bone (BV) were assessed. Results: For SLActive ® and Nanotite ™ implants, BIC% increased significantly over time. No statistically significant differences in BIC% were found between SLActive ® and Nanotite ™ at all the respective implantation times. Moreover, for the different healing periods, no significant differences for BV between SLActive ® and Nanotite ™ implants were found. Conclusions: The present study showed that SLActive ® and NanoTite ™ implants induce a similar bone response after implantation for 2, 4 and 8 weeks in a non‐submerged position in the mandible of dogs. To cite this article:
Al‐Hamdan K, Al‐Moaber SH, Junker R, Jansen JA. Effect of implant surface properties on peri‐implant bone healing: a histological and histomorphometric study in dogs.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res . 22 , 2011; 399–405.