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
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34 (2019), No. 1     21. Mar. 2019
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34 (2019), No. 1  (21.03.2019)

Page 61-67, doi:10.11607/jomi.6715, PubMed:30521652


Regenerated Bone Pattern Around Exposed Implants with Various Designs
Han, Chong-Hyun / Kim, Sunjai / Chung, Moon-Kyu / Heo, Seong-Joo / Rhyu, In-Chul / Kwon, Yong uk / Chang, Jae-Seung
Purpose: The design and surface features of dental implants substantially affect the healing and remodeling of adjacent bones. This study aimed to investigate the impact of design and surface on bone regeneration using implants of two different pitches, each with three different surface features.
Materials and Methods: Custom-manufactured titanium implants (length, 10 mm; diameter, 3.5 mm) were divided along the major axis into two sections: one with 0.6-mm pitch and the other with 0.4-mm pitch. They were processed by turned, blasting and etching, and anodic oxidation surface treatments and implanted into rabbit tibia. The upper 4 mm of the inserted implants was exposed, and bone regeneration was induced around the exposed area using a titanium chamber (height: 4 mm) containing particulate autogenous and bovine bone. After a 12-week healing period, the quantity and quality of bone regeneration around the implants were evaluated. Thirty specimens-10 specimens each from the turned, blasting and etching, and anodic oxidation surface groups with 0.6- and 0.4-mm-pitch sizes-were evaluated by histomorphometric analysis.
Results: The vertical height and width of regenerated bone around blasting and etching and anodic oxidation surfaces were significantly greater than those around turned implants (P < .05); the vertical heights of regenerated bone around the 0.4-mm-pitch sections of blasting and etching and anodic oxidation surfaces were significantly greater than those around the 0.6-mm-pitch sections (P < .05). Both blasting and etching and anodic oxidation surfaces exhibited significantly greater bone-to-implant contact and bone volume at the implant thread than turned implants (P < .05). However, there was no significant difference between the 0.6- and 0.4-mm-pitch sections.
Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that blasting and etching and anodic oxidation surfaces with a 0.4-mm-pitch design result in greater vertical ingrowth of regenerated bone than those with a 0.6-mm-pitch design.

Keywords: anodic oxidation, blasting and etching, bone regeneration, exposed implant, implant pitch, surface features