Author(s): AlNawas B, Groetz KA, Goetz H, Duschner H, Wagner W
Abstract Share this page
Abstract OBJECTIVES: Test of favourable conditions for osseointegration with respect to optimum bone-implant contact (BIC) in a loaded animal model. The varied parameters were surface roughness and surface topography of commercially available dental implants. METHOD: Thirty-two implants of six types of macro and microstructure were included in the study (total 196). The different types were: minimally rough control: Branemark machined Mk III; oxidized surface: TiUnite MkIII and MkIV; ZL Ticer; blasted and etched surface: Straumann SLA; rough control: titanium plasma sprayed (TPS). Sixteen beagle dogs were implanted with the whole set of the above implants. After a healing period of 8 weeks, implants were loaded for 3 months. For the evaluation of the BIC areas, adequately sectioned biopsies were visualized by subsurface scans with confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). RESULTS: The primary statistical analysis testing BIC of the moderately rough implants (mean 56.1+/-13.0\%) vs. the minimally rough and the rough controls (mean 53.9+/-11.2\%) does not reveal a significant difference (P=0.57). Mean values of 50-70\% BIC were found for all implant types. Moderately rough oxidized implants show a median BIC, which is 8\% higher than their minimally rough turned counterpart. The intraindividual difference between the TPS and the blasted and etched counterparts revealed no significant difference. The turned and the oxidized implants show median values of the resonance frequency [implant stability quotients (ISQ)] over 60; the nonself-tapping blasted and etched and TPS implants show median values below 60. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, the benefit of rough surfaces relative to minimally rough ones in this loaded animal model was confirmed histologically. The comparison of different surface treatment modalities revealed no significant differences between the modern moderately rough surfaces. Resonance frequency analysis seems to be influenced in a major part by the transducer used, thus prohibiting the comparison of different implant systems.
This article was published in Clin Oral Implants Res
and referenced in Dentistry