Biomechanical testing of microblasted, acid-etched/microblasted, anodized, and discrete crystalline deposition surfaces: an experimental study in beagle dogs.

Estevam A. Bonfante, Rodrigo Granato, Charles Marin, Ryo Jimbo, Gabriela Giro, Marcelo Suzuki, Paulo G. Coelho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Modifications in implant surface topography and chemistry may alter the early bone response at different levels. This study characterized four implant surfaces and evaluated the biomechanical fixation and histologic response at early implantation times in a canine radius model. External-hexagon Branemark-type implants were used with four experimental surfaces: microblasted (MI), acid-etched and microblasted (AAM), anodized (A), and discrete crystalline deposition (DCD). Surface topography was assessed by scanning electron microscopy, interferometry, and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The implants were placed in the central region of the radii of eight beagle dogs and remained in vivo for 10 or 30 days. The implants were torqued to interface failure, and a general linear statistical model with torque as the dependent variable and implant surface and time in vivo as independent variables was used. All surfaces presented were textured, and different surface chemistries were observed. No significant differences between implant surfaces were observed for torque at 10 days. However, at 30 days, the AAM surface presented significantly higher torque values compared to the DCD and A surfaces. Significantly higher torque values were observed at 30 days compared to 10 days (P < .001). Significantly different biomechanical fixation dependent on surface preparation was observed after 30 days, and all surfaces were biocompatible and osteoconductive.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)136-142
Number of pages7
JournalThe International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Volume28
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2013

Fingerprint

Torque
Dogs
Acids
Interferometry
Photoelectron Spectroscopy
Statistical Models
Electron Scanning Microscopy
Canidae
Linear Models
X-Rays
Bone and Bones

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Biomechanical testing of microblasted, acid-etched/microblasted, anodized, and discrete crystalline deposition surfaces : an experimental study in beagle dogs. / Bonfante, Estevam A.; Granato, Rodrigo; Marin, Charles; Jimbo, Ryo; Giro, Gabriela; Suzuki, Marcelo; Coelho, Paulo G.

In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, Vol. 28, No. 1, 01.2013, p. 136-142.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{971601949ae14bcabe3062d02bf81802,
title = "Biomechanical testing of microblasted, acid-etched/microblasted, anodized, and discrete crystalline deposition surfaces: an experimental study in beagle dogs.",
abstract = "Modifications in implant surface topography and chemistry may alter the early bone response at different levels. This study characterized four implant surfaces and evaluated the biomechanical fixation and histologic response at early implantation times in a canine radius model. External-hexagon Branemark-type implants were used with four experimental surfaces: microblasted (MI), acid-etched and microblasted (AAM), anodized (A), and discrete crystalline deposition (DCD). Surface topography was assessed by scanning electron microscopy, interferometry, and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The implants were placed in the central region of the radii of eight beagle dogs and remained in vivo for 10 or 30 days. The implants were torqued to interface failure, and a general linear statistical model with torque as the dependent variable and implant surface and time in vivo as independent variables was used. All surfaces presented were textured, and different surface chemistries were observed. No significant differences between implant surfaces were observed for torque at 10 days. However, at 30 days, the AAM surface presented significantly higher torque values compared to the DCD and A surfaces. Significantly higher torque values were observed at 30 days compared to 10 days (P < .001). Significantly different biomechanical fixation dependent on surface preparation was observed after 30 days, and all surfaces were biocompatible and osteoconductive.",
author = "Bonfante, {Estevam A.} and Rodrigo Granato and Charles Marin and Ryo Jimbo and Gabriela Giro and Marcelo Suzuki and Coelho, {Paulo G.}",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "136--142",
journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical testing of microblasted, acid-etched/microblasted, anodized, and discrete crystalline deposition surfaces

T2 - an experimental study in beagle dogs.

AU - Bonfante, Estevam A.

AU - Granato, Rodrigo

AU - Marin, Charles

AU - Jimbo, Ryo

AU - Giro, Gabriela

AU - Suzuki, Marcelo

AU - Coelho, Paulo G.

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - Modifications in implant surface topography and chemistry may alter the early bone response at different levels. This study characterized four implant surfaces and evaluated the biomechanical fixation and histologic response at early implantation times in a canine radius model. External-hexagon Branemark-type implants were used with four experimental surfaces: microblasted (MI), acid-etched and microblasted (AAM), anodized (A), and discrete crystalline deposition (DCD). Surface topography was assessed by scanning electron microscopy, interferometry, and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The implants were placed in the central region of the radii of eight beagle dogs and remained in vivo for 10 or 30 days. The implants were torqued to interface failure, and a general linear statistical model with torque as the dependent variable and implant surface and time in vivo as independent variables was used. All surfaces presented were textured, and different surface chemistries were observed. No significant differences between implant surfaces were observed for torque at 10 days. However, at 30 days, the AAM surface presented significantly higher torque values compared to the DCD and A surfaces. Significantly higher torque values were observed at 30 days compared to 10 days (P < .001). Significantly different biomechanical fixation dependent on surface preparation was observed after 30 days, and all surfaces were biocompatible and osteoconductive.

AB - Modifications in implant surface topography and chemistry may alter the early bone response at different levels. This study characterized four implant surfaces and evaluated the biomechanical fixation and histologic response at early implantation times in a canine radius model. External-hexagon Branemark-type implants were used with four experimental surfaces: microblasted (MI), acid-etched and microblasted (AAM), anodized (A), and discrete crystalline deposition (DCD). Surface topography was assessed by scanning electron microscopy, interferometry, and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The implants were placed in the central region of the radii of eight beagle dogs and remained in vivo for 10 or 30 days. The implants were torqued to interface failure, and a general linear statistical model with torque as the dependent variable and implant surface and time in vivo as independent variables was used. All surfaces presented were textured, and different surface chemistries were observed. No significant differences between implant surfaces were observed for torque at 10 days. However, at 30 days, the AAM surface presented significantly higher torque values compared to the DCD and A surfaces. Significantly higher torque values were observed at 30 days compared to 10 days (P < .001). Significantly different biomechanical fixation dependent on surface preparation was observed after 30 days, and all surfaces were biocompatible and osteoconductive.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893351746&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893351746&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 23377058

AN - SCOPUS:84893351746

VL - 28

SP - 136

EP - 142

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 1

ER -