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 23 (2008), No. 6     15. Nov. 2008
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23 (2008), No. 6  (15.11.2008)

Page 1037-1046, PubMed:19216272


Biomechanical Comparison of Different Surface Modifications for Dental Implants
Ferguson, Stephen J. / Langhoff, Jens D. / Voelter, Katrin / Rechenberg, Brigitte von / Scharnweber, Dieter / Bierbaum, Susanne / Schnabelrauch, Matthias / Kautz, Armin R. / Frauchiger, Vinzenz M. / Mu, Thomas L.
Purpose: A satisfactory clinical outcome in dental implant treatment relies on primary stability for immediate load bearing. While the geometric design of an implant contributes to mechanical stability, the nature of the implant surface itself is also critically important. Biomechanical and microcomputerized tomographic evaluation of implant osseointegration was performed to compare alternative structural, chemical and biochemical, and/or pharmaceutical surface treatments applied to an identical established implant design.
Materials and Methods: Dental implants with the same geometry but with 6 different surface treatments were tested in vivo in a sheep model (pelvis). Peri-implant bone density and removal torque were compared at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after implantation. Implant surfaces tested were: sandblasted and acid-etched titanium (Ti), sandblasted and etched zirconia, Ti coated with calcium phosphate (CaP), Ti modified via anodic plasma-chemical treatment (APC), bisphosphonate-coated Ti (Ti + Bisphos), and Ti coated with collagen containing chondroitin sulfate (CS).
Results: All dental implants were well integrated at the time of sacrifice. There were no significant differences observed in peri-implant bone density between implant groups. After 8 weeks of healing, removal torque values for Ti, Ti + CaP, Ti + Bisphos, and Ti + collagen + CS were significantly higher than those for zirconia and Ti + APC.
Conclusions: Whereas the sandblasted/acid-etched Ti implant can still be considered the reference standard surface for dental implants, functional surface modifications such as bisphosphonate or collagen coating seem to enhance early peri-implant bone formation and should be studied further.

Keywords: biomechanics, bisphosphonate, collagen, dental implant, osseointegration