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 26 (2011), No. 1     15. Feb. 2011
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26 (2011), No. 1  (15.02.2011)

Page 63-69, PubMed:21365039

Bone Mineral Apposition Rates at Early Implantation Times Around Differently Prepared Titanium Surfaces: A Study in Beagle Dogs
Coelho, Paulo G. / Freire, Jose N. / Granato, Rodrigo / Marin, Charles / Bonfante, Estevam A. / Gil, Jose N. / Chuang, Sung-Kiang / Suzuki, Marcelo
Purpose: This study evaluated the bone mineral apposition rate (MAR) at the bone-implant interface region of alumina-blasted/acid-etched (AB/AE), plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite (PSHA), and nanometric-scale bioceramic-coated surfaces at early implantation times in a dog tibia model.
Materials and Methods: Implants (n = 12 per group) with three different surfaces-AB/AE, PSHA, and a bioceramic coating in the 300- to 500-nm thickness range-were placed bilaterally along the proximal tibiae of six male beagles. Implants remained for 3 and 5 weeks in vivo. Ten and 2 days prior to euthanization, calcein green and oxytetracycline were administered for bone labeling. Following euthanization, the limbs were retrieved by sharp dissection and the implants and bone were processed nondecalcified into ~30-µm-thick sections along the implant long axis. MAR was measured by the distance between bone labels over time at the interface region (to 0.5 mm from the implant surface) and at regions > 3 mm from the implant surface (remote site). A generalized linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was conducted with significance levels set at .05.
Results: Irrespective of implant surface, the MAR at the interface region was significantly higher than the MAR at the remote site. Significant MAR differences in the interface region were observed between the different surfaces (PSHA > AB/AE > nano).
Conclusions: Bone kinetics during early healing stages were influenced by implant surface modifications.

Keywords: endosseous implant, in vivo, mineral apposition rate, surface properties