Abstract
BackgroundTo evaluate the effect of two different implant macro-designs on the sequential osseointegration at bicortically installed implants in the rabbit tibia. A further aim is to compare the osseointegration at different topographic zones.Material and Methods27 New Zealand rabbits were implemented. Two implants, one for each macro-design (Ticare Inhex® or Ticare Quattro®, Mozo-Grau, Valladolid, Spain), were randomly implanted in the diaphysis or metaphysis of each tibia. The flaps were sutured to allow a submerged healing. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 4 or 8 weeks. Ground sections were prepared and analyzed.ResultsNo statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for newly formed bone in contact with the implant surface, being about 16%, 19% and 33% in both groups, after 2, 4, and 8 weeks of healing. Bone apposition was slightly higher in the diaphysis, reaching values of 36.4% in the diaphysis, and 29.3% in the metaphysis at 8 weeks of healing. It was observed that the implant position showed a statistical significance regarding BIC values at 4 and 8 weeks (p<0.05). Multivariate analysis fails to detect statistical significant differences for the interaction between implant designs and topographic site. Ticare Quattro® design had a slight better BIC values at diaphysis sites across healing stages, but without reaching a statistical significance.ConclusionsThe both implant macro-designs provided similar degrees of osseointegration. Bone morphometry and density may affect bone apposition onto the implant surface. The apposition rates were slightly better in diaphysis compared to metaphysis. Key words:Animal study, bicortical stabilization, implant macro-design, osseointegration, dental implant, submerged healing.
Highlights
Osseointegration and the direct bone-to-implant contact (BIC) [1] are concepts that transformed the maxillofacial reconstruction approaches
The apposition rates were slightly better in diaphysis compared to metaphysis
Modified macro-geometry and different microgeometries of implants has shown to have an stimulatory effect on osseointegration [10], that impacts the dynamics of implant osseointegration and suggesting that macrodesign features should be made relative to the biological and mechanical micro-environment [15]
Summary
Osseointegration and the direct bone-to-implant contact (BIC) [1] are concepts that transformed the maxillofacial reconstruction approaches. Primary stability is the mechanical interlocking between the implant and the surrounding bone, which is influenced by the implant macro-geometry, surface roughness and surgical preparation [5]. This primary stability decreases when a remodeling of the surrounding parent bone takes place. Modified macro-geometry and different microgeometries of implants has shown to have an stimulatory effect on osseointegration [10], that impacts the dynamics of implant osseointegration and suggesting that macrodesign features should be made relative to the biological and mechanical micro-environment [15] Other characteristics such healing chamber configuration have proven to facilitate osseointegration [16]. Ticare Quattro® design had a slight better BIC values at diaphysis sites across healing stages, but without reaching a statistical significance
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
