Surface characterization, biomechanical, and histologic evaluation of alumina and bioactive resorbable blasting textured surfaces in titanium implant healing chambers

an experimental study in dogs.

Lukasz Witek, Charles Marin, Rodrigo Granato, Estevam A. Bonfante, Felipe E B Campos, Julio Bisinotto Gomes, Marcelo Suzuki, Paulo G. Coelho

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The present study was conducted to determine whether biomechanical and histologic parameters would differ between implant surfaces blasted with bioactive ceramic resorbable media (biologic blasting) and blasted with alumina and acid-etched. Fourteen beagle dogs were used. Eight animals received two implants of each surface per limb, and each limb provided samples that remained in vivo for 3 and 6 weeks. The other six animals received two implants of each surface in one limb, which remained in vivo for 1 week. After euthanization, half of the implants were subjected to torque-to-interface fracture; the other half of the implants were processed for nondecalcified histology to calculate bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO). Statistical analysis was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test (95% level of significance). While no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO between surfaces at all three times in vivo and for torque levels at 1 and 3 weeks, a significantly higher torque was observed for the biologic blasting group after 6 weeks in vivo. Bone morphology was similar between groups at all times. A significant increase in early biomechanical fixation was observed for implants with the biologic blasting surface. However, no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO at any observation point.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)694-700
Number of pages7
JournalThe International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Volume28
Issue number3
StatePublished - May 2013

Fingerprint

Aluminum Oxide
Titanium
Dogs
Bone and Bones
Torque
Extremities
Ceramics
Histology
Observation
Acids

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Surface characterization, biomechanical, and histologic evaluation of alumina and bioactive resorbable blasting textured surfaces in titanium implant healing chambers : an experimental study in dogs. / Witek, Lukasz; Marin, Charles; Granato, Rodrigo; Bonfante, Estevam A.; Campos, Felipe E B; Gomes, Julio Bisinotto; Suzuki, Marcelo; Coelho, Paulo G.

In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, Vol. 28, No. 3, 05.2013, p. 694-700.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3e9bd2286384490ebc23e956806c402a,
title = "Surface characterization, biomechanical, and histologic evaluation of alumina and bioactive resorbable blasting textured surfaces in titanium implant healing chambers: an experimental study in dogs.",
abstract = "The present study was conducted to determine whether biomechanical and histologic parameters would differ between implant surfaces blasted with bioactive ceramic resorbable media (biologic blasting) and blasted with alumina and acid-etched. Fourteen beagle dogs were used. Eight animals received two implants of each surface per limb, and each limb provided samples that remained in vivo for 3 and 6 weeks. The other six animals received two implants of each surface in one limb, which remained in vivo for 1 week. After euthanization, half of the implants were subjected to torque-to-interface fracture; the other half of the implants were processed for nondecalcified histology to calculate bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO). Statistical analysis was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test (95{\%} level of significance). While no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO between surfaces at all three times in vivo and for torque levels at 1 and 3 weeks, a significantly higher torque was observed for the biologic blasting group after 6 weeks in vivo. Bone morphology was similar between groups at all times. A significant increase in early biomechanical fixation was observed for implants with the biologic blasting surface. However, no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO at any observation point.",
author = "Lukasz Witek and Charles Marin and Rodrigo Granato and Bonfante, {Estevam A.} and Campos, {Felipe E B} and Gomes, {Julio Bisinotto} and Marcelo Suzuki and Coelho, {Paulo G.}",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "694--700",
journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surface characterization, biomechanical, and histologic evaluation of alumina and bioactive resorbable blasting textured surfaces in titanium implant healing chambers

T2 - an experimental study in dogs.

AU - Witek, Lukasz

AU - Marin, Charles

AU - Granato, Rodrigo

AU - Bonfante, Estevam A.

AU - Campos, Felipe E B

AU - Gomes, Julio Bisinotto

AU - Suzuki, Marcelo

AU - Coelho, Paulo G.

PY - 2013/5

Y1 - 2013/5

N2 - The present study was conducted to determine whether biomechanical and histologic parameters would differ between implant surfaces blasted with bioactive ceramic resorbable media (biologic blasting) and blasted with alumina and acid-etched. Fourteen beagle dogs were used. Eight animals received two implants of each surface per limb, and each limb provided samples that remained in vivo for 3 and 6 weeks. The other six animals received two implants of each surface in one limb, which remained in vivo for 1 week. After euthanization, half of the implants were subjected to torque-to-interface fracture; the other half of the implants were processed for nondecalcified histology to calculate bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO). Statistical analysis was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test (95% level of significance). While no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO between surfaces at all three times in vivo and for torque levels at 1 and 3 weeks, a significantly higher torque was observed for the biologic blasting group after 6 weeks in vivo. Bone morphology was similar between groups at all times. A significant increase in early biomechanical fixation was observed for implants with the biologic blasting surface. However, no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO at any observation point.

AB - The present study was conducted to determine whether biomechanical and histologic parameters would differ between implant surfaces blasted with bioactive ceramic resorbable media (biologic blasting) and blasted with alumina and acid-etched. Fourteen beagle dogs were used. Eight animals received two implants of each surface per limb, and each limb provided samples that remained in vivo for 3 and 6 weeks. The other six animals received two implants of each surface in one limb, which remained in vivo for 1 week. After euthanization, half of the implants were subjected to torque-to-interface fracture; the other half of the implants were processed for nondecalcified histology to calculate bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO). Statistical analysis was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test (95% level of significance). While no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO between surfaces at all three times in vivo and for torque levels at 1 and 3 weeks, a significantly higher torque was observed for the biologic blasting group after 6 weeks in vivo. Bone morphology was similar between groups at all times. A significant increase in early biomechanical fixation was observed for implants with the biologic blasting surface. However, no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO at any observation point.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84898137823&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84898137823&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 694

EP - 700

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 3

ER -