Effectiveness of a new dental implant bioactive surface: histological and histomorphometric comparative study in minipigs
The objective of this study was to assess, by histomorphometric analysis, the degree of bone apposition on two types of dental implant’s surfaces: a novel implant that combines Al2O3 abrasive particle blasting with thermochemical treatment (ContacTi), compared to a standard surface treatment obtained by sandblasting and acid etching (shot blasting).
Materials and methods
Twelve minipigs were used, placing the studied implants in the maxillae, and divided into three groups according to the time of sacrifice: 2, 4, and 8 weeks after implant placement. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed following standardized tissue polymerization, cutting, and staining and examined under optical and high-resolution electron microscope.
For all measurements, the novel surface presented higher levels of osseointegration as compared to the shot blasting surface. Bone to implant contact (BIC) in the maxillae for ContacTi presented values of 49.02, 83.20, and 85.58% at 2, 4, and 8 weeks, respectively, significantly higher compared to the shot blasting surface values of 39.32, 46.53, and 46.20% for the same time points. Bone area density (BAD) presented values of 26.52, 61.21, and 59.50% for ContacTi surface implants and 22.95, 36.26, and 49.50% for the shot blasted surface implants. Signs of osteoconductivity were observed in the ContacTi surfaces at 2 weeks.
The ContacTi surface achieved a faster growth of hard tissues around the implants, when compared to the shot blasting surface, and for all evaluated histomorphometric parameters, the values were higher at all measured time points.
ContacTi could be a new surface improving the osseointegration in oral implantology.
KeywordsDental implants Bone histomorphometry Implant stability Bone healing Shot blasting surface Bioactivity
The authors would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Science of Spain for funding to this project (MAT2012-30706) as well as Klockner, S.L. for donating the implants used.
Compliance with ethical standards
The present study was carried out in maxillae of 12 six-year-old female minipigs in the Córdoba University’s Servicio Centralizado de Animales de Experimentación located in the Campus de Rabanales and approved by the University of Seville Ethics Experimentation Committee (MED2016-01-324). All requirements and regulations for animal experimentation, according to the Spanish and European Union, were fulfilled.
Conflict of interest
Mariano Herrero-Climent declares that he has no conflict of interest. Manuel María Romero declares that he has no conflict of interest. Pedro Lázaro declares that he has no conflict of interest. José Vicente Rios declares that he has no conflict of interest, and F. Javier Gil Mur declares that he has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants. For the animal study, the study was approved by the University of Seville Ethics Experimentation Committee (MED2016-01-324).
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 3.Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A Oral implant surfaces: Part 1--review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 17:536–43Google Scholar
- 6.Lamers E, Frank Walboomers X, Domanski M et al (2010) The influence of nanoscale grooved substrates on osteoblast behavior and extracellular matrix deposition. Biomaterials 31:3307–3316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Stanford CM (2008) Surface modifications of dental implants. Aust Dent J. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00038.x
- 16.Kokubo T, Miyaji F, Kim H-M, Nakamura T (1996) Spontaneous Formation of Bonelike Apatite Layer on Chemically Treated Titanium Metals. J Am Ceram Soc 79:1127–1129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1996.tb08561.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Yan WQ, Nakamura T, Kobayashi M et al (1997) Bonding of chemically treated titanium implants to bone. J Biomed Mater Res 37:267–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199711)37:2<267::AID-JBM17>3.0.CO;2-B CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Germanier Y, Tosatti S, Broggini N et al (2006) Enhanced bone apposition around biofunctionalized sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces: A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:251–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01222.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Geesink RGT, De Groot K, Klein CPAT (1987) Chemical Implant Fixation Using Hydroxyl-Apatite Coatings. Clin Orthop Relat Res:147–170Google Scholar
- 30.Hulshoff JEG, Hayakawa T, Van Dijk K et al (1997) Mechanical and histologic evaluation of Ca-P plasma-spray and magnetron sputter-coated implants in trabecular bone of the goat. J Biomed Mater Res 36:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199707)36:1<75::AID-JBM9>3.0.CO;2-I CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Favero V, Lang NP, Favero R et al (2016) Sequential morphometric evaluation at UnicCa(®) and DCD(®) implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12888
- 33.Botticelli D, Lang NP (2016) Dynamics of osseointegration in various human and animal models - a comparative analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12872
- 41.Groessner-Schreiber B, Tuan RS (1992) Enhanced extracellular matrix production and mineralization by osteoblasts cultured on titanium surfaces in vitro. J Cell Sci 101 ( Pt 1:209–217Google Scholar