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 14 (1999), No. 2     15. Apr. 1999
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14 (1999), No. 2  (15.04.1999)

Page 271-277

Evaluation of Combinations of Titanium, Zirconia, and Alumina Implants with 2 Bone Fillers in the Dog
Dubruille, Jean-Hermann / Viguier, Eric / Naour, Giles Le / Dubruille, Marie-Thérèse / Auriol, Michèle / Charpentier, Yves Le
The quality of the tissue-implant interface was evaluated using light and scanning electron microscopy with morphometric analysis. Nine dogs were implanted with 3 types of dental implants (titanium, zirconia, or alumina). A total of 24 dental implants was placed in mandibular bone previously filled with coral carbonate calcium (corail) or hydroxyapatite. The study results in breaking the concept of osseointegration into 2 phases: "osseocoaptation," which concerns only the interface (physical contact between the implants and the bone without interpenetration process), and "osseocoalescence," which relies on an interpenetration of the bioactive material, which almost entirely disappears, being substituted by newly formed bone. There was no significant statistical difference between the 3 types of implants. Both fillings showed good ossecoalescence properties. However, hydroxyapatite led to fibrous encystment, preventing osseocoaptation of implants, in contrast with calcium carbonate filling.

Keywords: bone filler materials, implants, osseocoalescence, osseocoaptation