Abstract
Dental implants with surface-porous designs have been recently developed. Clinically, peri-implant bone grafting is expected to promote early osseointegration and bone ingrowth when applied with surface-porous dental implants in challenging conditions. The aim of this study was to comparatively analyze peri-implant bone healing around solid implants and surface-porous implants with and without peri-implant bone grafting, using biomechanical and histomorphometrical assessment in a goat iliac bone model. A total of 36 implants (4.1 mm wide, 11.5 mm long) divided into three groups, solid titanium implant (STI; n = 12), porous titanium implants (PTI; n = 12) and PTI with peri-implant bone grafting using biphasic calcium phosphate granules (PTI + BCP; n = 12), were placed bilaterally in the iliac crests of six goats. The goats were sacrificed seven weeks post-operatively and then subjected to biomechanical (n = 6 per group) and histomorphometrical (n = 6 per group) assessment. The biomechanical assessment revealed no significant differences between the three types of implants. Although the peri-implant bone-area (PIBA%) measured by histomorphometry (STI: 8.63 ± 3.93%, PTI: 9.89 ± 3.69%, PTI + BCP: 9.28 ± 2.61%) was similar for the three experimental groups, the percentage of new bone growth area (BGA%) inside the porous implant portion was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the PTI group (10.67 ± 4.61%) compared to the PTI + BCP group (6.50 ± 6.53%). These data demonstrate that peri-implant bone grafting around surface-porous dental implants does not significantly accelerate early osseointegration and bone ingrowth.
Highlights
Titanium implants, known for their high degree of biocompatibility and good mechanical properties, are the most frequently used endosseous implants in dentistry and orthopedics [1]
The success rate of dental implants is affected by the mechanical engagement of the implant with the surrounding bone ensuring primary stability, which is determined by the quantity and the quality of the bone, implant geometry, and surface
The biomechanical revealed no significant differences in the mean values between the experimental groups: SIrevealed group
Summary
Known for their high degree of biocompatibility and good mechanical properties, are the most frequently used endosseous implants in dentistry and orthopedics [1]. The long-term survival rate of dental implants is challenged by low-density bone (Type IV bone, Lekholm and Zarb classification) [9], as is frequently seen in elderly patients [10]. This suboptimal type IV bone leads to the clinical instability of dental implants, due to unsatisfactory osseointegration [11]. The decreased capacity of bone to optimize implant fixation can be considered as a potential risk factor for implant failure [12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
