Abstract
Simple SummaryThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of treating the surface of dental implants with carboxyethylphosphonic acid for the immobilization of FGF-2, the influence of FGF-2 on cortical bone in close contact with dental implants, new bone formation around dental implants in the presence of FGF-2 and the influence of FGF-2 on the interthread bone area of dental implants during the healing period after insertion.The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implant surface treatment with carboxyethylphosphonic acid and fibroblast growth factor 2 on the bone–implant interface during the osseointegration period in vivo using an animal model. The present research was carried out in six minipigs, in whose left tibia implants were inserted as follows: eight implants with a standard surface treatment, for the control group, and eight implants with a surface treatment of carboxyethylphosphonic acid and immobilization of FGF-2, for the test group. At 4 weeks after the insertion of the implants, the animals were sacrificed for the histomorphometric analysis of the samples. The means of the results for the implant–bone contact variable (BIC) were 46.39 ± 17.49% for the test group and 34.00 ± 9.92% for the control group; the difference was not statistically significant. For the corrected implant–bone contact variable (BICc), the mean value of the test group was 60.48 ± 18.11%, and that for the control group, 43.08 ± 10.77%; the difference was statistically significant (p-value = 0.035). The new bone formation (BV/TV) showed average results of 27.28 ± 3.88% for the test group and 26.63 ± 7.90% for the control group, meaning that the differences were not statistically significant (p-value = 0.839). Regarding the bone density at the interthread level (BAI/TA), the mean value of the test group was 32.27 ± 6.70%, and that of the control group was 32.91 ± 7.76%, with a p-value of 0.863, while for the peri-implant density (BAP/TA), the mean value of the test group was 44.96 ± 7.55%, and that for the control group was 44.80 ± 8.68%, without a significant difference between the groups. The current research only found a significant difference for the bone–implant contact at the cortical level; therefore, it could be considered that FGF-2 acts on the mineralization of bone tissue. The application of carboxyethylphosphonic acid on the surface of implants can be considered a promising alternative as a biomimetic coating for the immobilization of FGF-2. Despite no differences in the new bone formation around the implants or in the interthread or peri-implant bone density being detected, the biofunctionalization of the implant surface with FGF-2 accelerates the mineralization of the bone–implant interface at the cortical level, thereby reducing the osseointegration period.
Highlights
The macroscopic and microscopic designs of dental implants are of great relevance.The microscopic design is considered more important in the initial phases of osseointegration and in initial loading, while the macroscopic design is more important in the mature phases of loading [1,2]
Thehistological histologicalanalysis analysisunder underthe thelight lightmicroscope microscopeofofthe thelongitudinal longitudinalsections sectionsofof the samples obtained in the control group revealed the formation the samples obtained in the control group revealed the formationofof new in contact contactwith withthe theimplant implantinin valley and implant thread regions
The histological analysis under the light microscope of the longitudinal sections of the samples obtained in the test group revealed the formation of new compact bone tissue
Summary
The macroscopic and microscopic designs of dental implants are of great relevance.The microscopic design (implant surface) is considered more important in the initial phases of osseointegration and in initial loading, while the macroscopic design (implant design) is more important in the mature phases of loading [1,2]. The design of a dental implant is one of its main characteristics, since critical factors such as load distribution depend on it and are intimately related to implant survival and the maintenance of long-term osseointegration [3]. The surface of a biomaterial is the only part that remains in contact with the biological environment; it plays a crucial role in the biological response of bone tissue. Characteristics such as the composition of the surface and its topography and roughness as well as its surface energy affect the mechanical stability of the bone–implant interface and osseointegration at the histological level [5,6]. Despite a success rate of 95% in the short term, late implant failures are associated with peri-implantitis [11,12,13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
