Effect of implant surface properties on peri-implant bone healing: a histological and histomorphometric study in dogs

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Apr;22(4):399-405. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02106.x.

Abstract

Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare two types of implants, i.e. grit-blasted and acid-etched implants (SLActive(®)) with nano-meter-scale hydroxyapatite surface-modified implants (NanoTite™).

Material and methods: For histological and histomorphometrical evaluation, 22 SLActive(®) and 22 Nanotite™ implants were inserted in eleven Beagle dogs. The animals were divided into three groups of healing (A: 2 weeks; B: 4 weeks and C: 8 weeks). Two, 4 and 8 weeks after implantation, the animals were sacrificed and bone-to-implant contact (BIC %), first implant-bone contact (1st BIC) as well as amount of bone (BV) were assessed.

Results: For SLActive(®) and Nanotite™ implants, BIC% increased significantly over time. No statistically significant differences in BIC% were found between SLActive(®) and Nanotite™ at all the respective implantation times. Moreover, for the different healing periods, no significant differences for BV between SLActive(®) and Nanotite™ implants were found.

Conclusions: The present study showed that SLActive(®) and NanoTite™ implants induce a similar bone response after implantation for 2, 4 and 8 weeks in a non-submerged position in the mandible of dogs.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Bone Density
  • Coated Materials, Biocompatible*
  • Dental Etching
  • Dental Implantation, Endosseous
  • Dental Implants*
  • Dental Prosthesis Design*
  • Dogs
  • Durapatite
  • Implants, Experimental*
  • Male
  • Mandible / surgery
  • Nanostructures
  • Osseointegration*
  • Random Allocation
  • Surface Properties
  • Time Factors
  • Titanium

Substances

  • Coated Materials, Biocompatible
  • Dental Implants
  • Durapatite
  • Titanium