We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 4     15. July 2003
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 (2003), No. 4  (15.07.2003)

Page 505-511

Bone Conditioning to Enhance Implant Osseointegration: An Experimental Study in Pigs
Schlegel, Karl Andreas / Kloss, Frank Rudolf / Kessler, Peter / Schultze-Mosgau, Stefan / Nkenke, Emeka / Wiltfang, Joerg
Purpose: Osseointegration of implants depends on time and the local bone conditions regarding quality and quantity. This led to the bone classification by Lekholm and Zarb. The aim of the present study was to enhance osseointegration of implants through conditioning of the bone bed and to compare in this context the efficacy of bone condensation, an osteoinductive collagen (Colloss), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).
Materials and Methods: Porcine frontal skull bone was used for the preparation of identical-size implant beds. Before placement of the implants (Ankylos, 3.5×4 mm), the implant beds were untreated (control) or conditioned with condensation, Colloss, or PRP. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 4, and 8 weeks. The specimens were then compared and analyzed by microradiography, and statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Results: At the early observation times, significant effects on the sites of topical bone conditioning in comparison to the control group could be seen regarding the implant-bone interface (2 weeks: control 31%, Colloss 60%, condensation 73%, PRP 47%; 4 weeks: control 39%, Colloss 51%, condensation 40%, PRP 42%) and periimplant bone density (2 weeks: control 31%, Colloss 48%, condensation 59%, PRP 39%; 4 weeks: control 47%, Colloss 53%, condensation 41%, PRP 50%). A leveling of the results between groups was found at 8 weeks (implant-bone interface: control 51%, Colloss 58%, condensation 55%, PRP 62%; peri-implant bone density: control 50%, Colloss 55%, condensation 51%, PRP 51%).
Discussion: Overall, bone condensation and Colloss apparently influenced bone formation process from the onset, but over the entire 8-week healing period, differences in bone formation were not significant.
Conclusion: It can be stated that, in the initial healing phase, an effect of topical bone conditioning may be achieved by the different described methods.