The effect of different implant macrogeometries and surface treatment in early biomechanical fixation

An experimental study in dogs

Paulo Coelho, Rodrigo Granato, Charles Marin, Hellen S. Teixeira, Marcelo Suzuki, Guilherme B. Valverde, Malvin N. Janal, Tomas Lilin, Estevam A. Bonfante

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Implant surface characterization and biomechanical testing were made to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments along with different implant bulk configurations expressed as biomechanical fixation at early implantation times. Three implant surfaces, namely bioactive ceramic electrodeposition (ED), alumina-blasted/acid etched (AB/AE), and resorbable blasting media (RBM) were fabricated in three implant macrogeometries (cylindrical, small chamber, and large chamber). All combinations between surface and bulk configurations were placed in the radii of beagle dogs (n= 18), which were euthanized 14 and 40 days after surgery (n= 9 animals per time in vivo). The implants were subjected to torque to interface fracture. Effects of time, surface, and macrogeometry on torque to interface fracture were evaluated by a GLM at 95% level of significance. The results showed a significant increase in torque as time elapsed in vivo (p< 0.001), and that the ED surface presented significantly higher values compared to AB/AE and RBM (p< 0.001) at both times. The small chamber only presented a significantly higher biomechanical fixation compared to other geometries at 40 days in vivo (p= 0.02). Biomechanical fixation at 14 and 40 days was affected by implant surface treatment, whereas implant design only affected results at 40 days in vivo.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1974-1981
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Volume4
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2011

Fingerprint

Surface treatment
Torque
Aluminum Oxide
Blasting
Electrodeposition
Alumina
Acids
Surgery
Animals
Geometry
Testing

Keywords

  • Biomechanical
  • Characterization
  • Dental implant
  • In vivo
  • Osseointegration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Mechanics of Materials

Cite this

The effect of different implant macrogeometries and surface treatment in early biomechanical fixation : An experimental study in dogs. / Coelho, Paulo; Granato, Rodrigo; Marin, Charles; Teixeira, Hellen S.; Suzuki, Marcelo; Valverde, Guilherme B.; Janal, Malvin N.; Lilin, Tomas; Bonfante, Estevam A.

In: Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, Vol. 4, No. 8, 11.2011, p. 1974-1981.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Coelho, Paulo ; Granato, Rodrigo ; Marin, Charles ; Teixeira, Hellen S. ; Suzuki, Marcelo ; Valverde, Guilherme B. ; Janal, Malvin N. ; Lilin, Tomas ; Bonfante, Estevam A. / The effect of different implant macrogeometries and surface treatment in early biomechanical fixation : An experimental study in dogs. In: Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2011 ; Vol. 4, No. 8. pp. 1974-1981.
@article{595347c8d86f4e0b8a8645510f670ce2,
title = "The effect of different implant macrogeometries and surface treatment in early biomechanical fixation: An experimental study in dogs",
abstract = "Implant surface characterization and biomechanical testing were made to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments along with different implant bulk configurations expressed as biomechanical fixation at early implantation times. Three implant surfaces, namely bioactive ceramic electrodeposition (ED), alumina-blasted/acid etched (AB/AE), and resorbable blasting media (RBM) were fabricated in three implant macrogeometries (cylindrical, small chamber, and large chamber). All combinations between surface and bulk configurations were placed in the radii of beagle dogs (n= 18), which were euthanized 14 and 40 days after surgery (n= 9 animals per time in vivo). The implants were subjected to torque to interface fracture. Effects of time, surface, and macrogeometry on torque to interface fracture were evaluated by a GLM at 95{\%} level of significance. The results showed a significant increase in torque as time elapsed in vivo (p< 0.001), and that the ED surface presented significantly higher values compared to AB/AE and RBM (p< 0.001) at both times. The small chamber only presented a significantly higher biomechanical fixation compared to other geometries at 40 days in vivo (p= 0.02). Biomechanical fixation at 14 and 40 days was affected by implant surface treatment, whereas implant design only affected results at 40 days in vivo.",
keywords = "Biomechanical, Characterization, Dental implant, In vivo, Osseointegration",
author = "Paulo Coelho and Rodrigo Granato and Charles Marin and Teixeira, {Hellen S.} and Marcelo Suzuki and Valverde, {Guilherme B.} and Janal, {Malvin N.} and Tomas Lilin and Bonfante, {Estevam A.}",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.06.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "1974--1981",
journal = "Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials",
issn = "1751-6161",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of different implant macrogeometries and surface treatment in early biomechanical fixation

T2 - An experimental study in dogs

AU - Coelho, Paulo

AU - Granato, Rodrigo

AU - Marin, Charles

AU - Teixeira, Hellen S.

AU - Suzuki, Marcelo

AU - Valverde, Guilherme B.

AU - Janal, Malvin N.

AU - Lilin, Tomas

AU - Bonfante, Estevam A.

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - Implant surface characterization and biomechanical testing were made to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments along with different implant bulk configurations expressed as biomechanical fixation at early implantation times. Three implant surfaces, namely bioactive ceramic electrodeposition (ED), alumina-blasted/acid etched (AB/AE), and resorbable blasting media (RBM) were fabricated in three implant macrogeometries (cylindrical, small chamber, and large chamber). All combinations between surface and bulk configurations were placed in the radii of beagle dogs (n= 18), which were euthanized 14 and 40 days after surgery (n= 9 animals per time in vivo). The implants were subjected to torque to interface fracture. Effects of time, surface, and macrogeometry on torque to interface fracture were evaluated by a GLM at 95% level of significance. The results showed a significant increase in torque as time elapsed in vivo (p< 0.001), and that the ED surface presented significantly higher values compared to AB/AE and RBM (p< 0.001) at both times. The small chamber only presented a significantly higher biomechanical fixation compared to other geometries at 40 days in vivo (p= 0.02). Biomechanical fixation at 14 and 40 days was affected by implant surface treatment, whereas implant design only affected results at 40 days in vivo.

AB - Implant surface characterization and biomechanical testing were made to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments along with different implant bulk configurations expressed as biomechanical fixation at early implantation times. Three implant surfaces, namely bioactive ceramic electrodeposition (ED), alumina-blasted/acid etched (AB/AE), and resorbable blasting media (RBM) were fabricated in three implant macrogeometries (cylindrical, small chamber, and large chamber). All combinations between surface and bulk configurations were placed in the radii of beagle dogs (n= 18), which were euthanized 14 and 40 days after surgery (n= 9 animals per time in vivo). The implants were subjected to torque to interface fracture. Effects of time, surface, and macrogeometry on torque to interface fracture were evaluated by a GLM at 95% level of significance. The results showed a significant increase in torque as time elapsed in vivo (p< 0.001), and that the ED surface presented significantly higher values compared to AB/AE and RBM (p< 0.001) at both times. The small chamber only presented a significantly higher biomechanical fixation compared to other geometries at 40 days in vivo (p= 0.02). Biomechanical fixation at 14 and 40 days was affected by implant surface treatment, whereas implant design only affected results at 40 days in vivo.

KW - Biomechanical

KW - Characterization

KW - Dental implant

KW - In vivo

KW - Osseointegration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81255136900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81255136900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.06.016

DO - 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.06.016

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 1974

EP - 1981

JO - Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

JF - Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

SN - 1751-6161

IS - 8

ER -