Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation No. 4, 2016

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 2 | Issue 4/2016 79 H e a l i n g o f s m o o t h v s . r o u g h s u r f a c e i m p l a n t s pared with that used in the above-mentioned study. It is importantto considerthat MBIC% repre- sents a percentage and not an absolute value of mineralizedboneincontactwiththeimplantsur- face. Even though the MBIC percentages maybe similar among surfaces with different 3-D para- meters, the absolute values may be dissimilar owing to the different roughness ofthe surfaces. In the present study, bone density around the implant surfaces was found to be higher at the turned (54.6 ± 9.6%) compared with the mod- erately rough (43.0 ± 9.0%) surfaces. It was found that the correlation between MBIC% and MB% was low (r = 0.3) when all of the implants were taken into account. However, when the two groups of implants, Combed and ZirTi sur- faces, were considered separately, r = 0.8 and r = 0.02 were observed, respectively. This gave rise to the speculation that the surface config- uration influenced not only the osseointegra- tion, but also the response of the tissue in close vicinity to the implant surface. This outcome of the present study is in agreement with that of a previously discussed study.4 In that study, after six, eight and twelve weeks of healing, a higher amount of mineral- ized tissue within the chamber at the turned compared with the rough surfaces was found. Moreover, during the same periods of healing, it was observed that the percentage of minera- lized tissue was increasing within the chamber of the turned surface, while it remained quite stable within the chamber ofthe rough surface. It has to be observed that the present study reports data on healing after four months and without loading. Longer periods of healing may yield different results. Moreover, the load may influence the healing as well.8 A further limitation of the present study is the lack of standardization of the sites, the implant with the Combed surface being placed consis- tentlyabout 10 mm more mesiallyin the premo- lar region ofthe alveolar process compared with the ZirTi surface. In conclusion and within the above-menti- oned limitations of this study, it has been shown that the surface characteristics of im- plants affected the degree of osseointegration. Both the turned and the moderately rough sur- faces were osseointegrated to a similar degree after four months of healing, with the modera- tely rough surface providing only modestly better osseointegration. However, the osseoin- tegration process before four months at the turned surfaces still requires greater elucida- tion. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regardingthe materials used inthe pres- ent study. Acknowledgments ThisstudywassupportedbyagrantfromSweden & Martina, ARDEC Academy, Ariminum Odont- ologica, Rimini, Italy, and the Clinical Research Foundation for the Promotion of Oral Health, Brienz, Switzerland. The competent contributions of Prof. Luiz A. Salata and Mr. Sebastião Bianco (FacultyofDen- tistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil) in the histological processing are highly appreciated 1. Botticelli D, Lang NP. Dynamics of osseointegration in various human and animal models—a comparative analysis. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 May 23. doi:10.1111/clr.12872. [Epub ahead of print]. 2. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jan-Feb;25(1):63–74. 3. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Jun;14(3):251–62. 4. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Linder E, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Early bone formation adjacent to rough and turned endosseous implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Aug;15(4):381–92. 5. Baffone GM, Botticelli D, Pantani F, Cardoso LC, Schweikert MT, Lang NP. Influence of various implant platform configurations on peri-implant tissue dimensions: an experimental study in dog. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Apr;22(4):438–44. 6. Schroeder HE, Münzel-Pedrazzoli S. Correlated morphometric and biochemical analysis of gingival tissue. Morphometric model, tissue sampling and test of stereologic procedures. → J Microsc. 1973 Dec;99(3):301–29. 7. Rossi F, Lang NP, De Santis E, Morelli F, Favero G, Botticelli D. Bone-healing pattern at the surface of titanium implants: an experimental study in the dog. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jan;25(1):124–31. 8. Rea M, Botticelli D, Ricci S, Soldini C, González GG, Lang NP. Influence of immediate loading on healing of implants installed with different insertion torques —an experimental study in dogs. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Jan;26(1):90–5. References Volume 2 | Issue 4/201679

Pages Overview