z-logo
Premium
Evaluation of nano‐technology‐modified zirconia oral implants: a study in rabbits
Author(s) -
Lee Jaebum,
Sieweke Janet H.,
Rodriguez Nancy A.,
Schüpbach Peter,
Lindström Håkan,
Susin Cristiano,
Wikesjö Ulf M. E.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2009.01423.x
Subject(s) - osseointegration , implant , dentistry , materials science , biomedical engineering , cubic zirconia , medicine , surgery , ceramic , composite material
Abstract Objective: The objective of this study was to screen candidate nano‐technology‐modified, micro‐structured zirconia implant surfaces relative to local bone formation and osseointegration. Materials and Methods: Proprietary nano‐technology surface‐modified (calcium phosphate: CaP) micro‐structured zirconia implants (A and C), control micro‐structured zirconia implants (ZiUnite™), and titanium porous oxide implants (TiUnite™) were implanted into the femoral condyle in 40 adult male New Zealand White rabbits. Each animal received one implant in each hind leg; thus, 20 animals received A and C implants and 20 animals received ZiUnite™ and TiUnite™ implants in contralateral hind legs. Ten animals/group were euthanized at weeks 3 and 6 when biopsies of the implant sites were processed for histometric analysis using digital photomicrographs produced using backscatter scanning electron microscopy. Results: The TiUnite™ surface demonstrated significantly greater bone–implant contact (BIC) (77.6±2.6%) compared with the A (64.6±3.6%) and C (62.2±3.1%) surfaces at 3 weeks ( p <0.05). Numerical differences between ZiUnite™ (70.5±3.1%) and A and C surfaces did not reach statistical significance ( p >0.05). Similarly, there were non‐significant differences between the TiUnite™ and the ZiUnite™ surfaces ( p >0.05). At 6 weeks, there were no significant differences in BIC between the TiUnite™ (67.1±4.2%), ZiUnite™ (69.7±5.7%), A (68.6±1.9%), and C (64.5±4.1%) surfaces ( p >0.05). Conclusion: TiUnite™ and ZiUnite™ implant surfaces exhibit high levels of osseointegration that, in this model, confirm their advanced osteoconductive properties. Addition of CaP nano‐technology to the ZiUnite™ surface does not enhance the already advanced osteoconductivity displayed by the TiUnite™ and ZiUnite™ implant surfaces.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here