Advertisement

The early osseointegration of the laser-treated and acid-etched dental implants surface: an experimental study in rabbits

  • Mingdeng Rong
  • Lei ZhouEmail author
  • Zehong Gou
  • Andi Zhu
  • Dongfeng Zhou
Article

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate early osseointegration of the laser-treated and acid-etched implant surface after the installation in rabbit tibias for 4 weeks. A total of 56 screw-shaped implants were grouped as follows: group A: implants were turned surface; group B: implants were laser-treated surface; group C: implants were acid-etched; group D: Implants were laser-treated and acid-etched surface. After 4 weeks, the removal torques were: group A: 13.21 ± 11.30 Ncm; group B: 29.73 ± 8.32 Ncm; group C: 30.31 ± 9.45 Ncm; group D: 35.76 ± 7.58 Ncm; The averages of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) were as follows: group A: 27.30 ± 6.55%; group B: 38.00 ± 8.56%; group C: 42.71 ± 8.48%; group D: 49.71 ± 9.21%. The removal torque and bone-to-implant contact measurements yielded statistically significant differences between the treated groups and turned group (P < 0.05); The laser-treated and acid-etched surface achieved higher Bone-to-Implant Contact than the laser-treated surface (P < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the laser-treated and acid-etched surface and the acid-etched surface in bone-to-implant contact (P > 0.05). In the present study, it was concluded that the laser-treated and acid-etched implants had good osteoconductivity and was a potential material for dental implantation.

Keywords

Bone Apposition Removal Torque Optimal Surface Roughness Dental Implantation Good Osseointegration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Project name: (1) National Science/Technology Pillar Program in the Eleventh Five-year Plan Period. Serial number: 2007BAI18BO6; (2) Science and Technology Three Item of Funds Plan Project of Guangdong Province. Serial number: 2006B19901006. This work was supported by the Guangdong Provincial Stomatological Hospital (Southern Medical University, China) and Guangdong Medical College.

References

  1. 1.
    DM Brunette. The effects of implant surface topography on the behavior of cells. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 1998;3:231–46.ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kieswetter K, Schwartz Z, Dean DD, Boyan BD. The role of implants surface characteristics in the healing of bone. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1996;7:329–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanmmons R, Lumbikanonda N, Cantzler P. Osteroblast interactions with a FRIADENT experimental surface and other microstructured dental implant surfaces. Scientific Poster: 10th International FRIADENT symposium, Mannheim/Heidelberg, Germany, May 16–17, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hofmann AA, Bloebaum RD, Bachus KN. Progression of human bone ingrowth into porous-coated implants. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997;68:161–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hall J, Miranda-burgos P, Sennerby L. Stimulation of directed bone growth at oxidized titanium implants by macroscopic grooves: an in vivo study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7:76–82.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mangano C, Perrotti V, Iezzi G, Scarano A, Mangano F, Piattelli A. Bone response to modified titanium surface implants in nonhuman primates (Papio ursinus) and humans: histological evaluation. J Oral Implantol. 2008;34(1):17–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwartz Z, Martin JY, Dean DD, Simpson J, Cochran DL, Boyan BD. Effect of titanium surface roughness on chondrocyte proliferation, matrix production and differentiation depends on the state of cell maturation. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996;30:145–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hallgren C, Reimers H, Chakarov D, Goldb J, Wennerberg A. An in vivo study of bone response to implants topographically modified by laser micromachining. Biomaterials. 2003;24:701–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaggl A, Schultes G, Müller WD, et al. Scanning electron microscopical analysis of laser-treated titanium implants surfaces: a comparative study. Biomaterials. 2000;21:1067–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sullivan DY, Sherwood RL, Mai TN. Preliminary results of a multicenter study evaluating a chemically enhanced surface for machined commercially pure titanium implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:379–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gold J. Microfabrication for biological applications, Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Applied Physics, Goteborg, Sweden, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bugea C, Luongo R, Di Iorio D, et al. Bone contact around osseointegrated implants: histologic analysis of a dual-acid-etched surface implant in a diabetic patient. Int J Periodontic Restor Dent. 2008;28:145–51.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fernandes Ede L, Unikowski IL, Teixeira ER, et al. Primary stability of turned and acid-etched screw-type implants: a removal torque and histomorphometric study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2007;22:886–92.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cho S-A, Jung S-K. A removal torque of the laser-treated titanium implants in rabbit tibia. Biomaterials. 2003;24:4859–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dong-Sheng W. Modified method of making ground section of bone with dental implant. Chin J Prosthodont Chin J Prosthodont. 2006;3:169–70.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jartoft P, Kinoform MK. Guided laser microfabrication of titanium implant surfaces. Master thesis, Department of Applied Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ari I, Ylanen OH, Ekholm C, Karlsson KH, Aro HT. Pore diameter of more than 100 μm is not requisite for bone ingrowth in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;58:679–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rupp F, Scheideler L, Rehbein D, Axmann D, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Roughness induced dynamic changes of wettability of acid etched titanium implant modifications. Biomaterial. 2004;25:1429–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wennerberg A. On surfaceroughness, implant incorporation. G.oteborg: Department of Biomaterials/Handicap Research, G.oteborg University; 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rønold HJ, Lyngstadaas SP, Ellingsen JE. Analysing the optimal value for titanium implant roughness in bone attachment using a tensile test. Biomaterials. 2003;24:4559–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Germanier Y, Tosatti S, Broggini N, Textor M, Buser D. Enhanced bone apposition around biofunctionalized sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces a histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2006;17:251–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lang Niklaus P. Healing sequeces during tissue integration of ITI implants-analysis of early morphogenesis. Congress, Fuzhou, September 9, 2007.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cho S-A, Park K-T. The removal torque of titanium screw inserted in rabbit tibia treated by dual acid etching. Biomaterials. 2003;24:3611–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mingdeng Rong
    • 1
  • Lei Zhou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zehong Gou
    • 1
  • Andi Zhu
    • 1
  • Dongfeng Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Guangdong Provincial Stomatological HospitalSouthern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations