Radiographic Evaluation of Dental Implants with Different Surface Treatments: An Experimental Study in Dogs

Radiographic Evaluation of Dental Implants with Different Surface Treatments: An Experimental Study in Dogs
September 2003
Taba, M??rio Jr. DDS, PhD*; Novaes, Arthur B. Jr. DDS, PhD**; Souza, S?©rgio L. S. DDS, PhD*; Grisi, M??rcio F. M. DDS, PhD***; Palioto, Daniela B. DDS, PhD*; Pardini, Luiz C. DDS, PhDÇƒÜ
*Professor of Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeir?£o Preto, University of S?£o Paulo, Ribeir?£o Preto, S?£o Paulo, Brazil.
**Chairman of Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeir?£o Preto, University of S?£o Paulo, Ribeir?£o Preto, S?£o Paulo, Brazil.
***Associate Professor of Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeir?£o Preto, University of S?£o Paulo, Ribeir?£o Preto, S?£o Paulo, Brazil.
ÇƒÜProfessor of Dental Radiology, School of Dentistry of Ribeir?£o Preto, University of S?£o Paulo, Ribeir?£o Preto, S?£o Paulo, Brazil.
Reprint requests and correspondence to: M??rio Taba Jr., DDS, PhD, Faculdade de Odontologia de Ribeir?£o Preto, USP, Depto. de CTBMF e Periodontia, Av. do Caf?© S/N 14040-904, Ribeir?£o Preto, SP Brazil
Implant Dentistry: Volume 12(3) September 2003 pp 252-258
Please visit the web site to view the article in its entirety.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the study was to radiographically measure the bone density at the peri-implant region after osseointegration and to compare the relative bone density achieved by different surface-treated implants.
Materials and Methods: Four different types of implant surfaces were compared, using five young-adult male mongrel dogs. The first, second, third, and fourth lower premolars were extracted. Ninety days after removal, four 3.75-mm diameter and 10-mm long screw implants (Paragon) were placed with different surface treatments in the lower hemiarches. The dogs received two implants each of the following surface treatments: 1) smooth (machined); 2) titanium plasma spray; 3) hydroxyapatite coating; and 4) sandblasting with soluble particles. The implants were maintained unloaded for 90 days. After this period, the animals were killed and the hemimandibles were extracted and radiographed. The grey level of the bone adjacent to implants was measured with a specific software tool (line histogram) and the relative bone density was calculated.
Results: The four different surface treatments promote different numeric levels of bone density around the dental implants (sandblasting with soluble particles, 52.45 ¨± 2.95; titanium plasma spray, 53.98 ¨± 3.67; machined, 55.78 ¨± 3.06, and hydroxyapatite coating, 58.2 ¨± 2.71). Therefore, the implants can be ranked in terms of relative bone density from high to low as follows: sandblasting with soluble particles, titanium plasma spray, machined, and hydroxyapatite coating. There were no statistically significant differences in bone density among the four groups (P = 0.1130, analysis of variance).
Conclusion: Surface treatments that add roughness to the implant show numerically higher bone density when compared with machined surfaces. The findings of radiographic density analysis suggest that the soluble blasting media-treated surface provides a greater bone density at the peri-implant region.
References
1. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, et al. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1991; 25: 889-902.
2. Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP, et al. Removal torque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 611-619.
3. Piattelli A, Manzon L, Scarano A, et al. Histologic and histomorphometric analysis of the bone response to machined and sandblasted titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 805-810.
4. Cochran DL. A comparison of endosseous dental implant surfaces. J Periodontol. 1999; 70: 1523-1539.
5. Nicopoulou-Karayianni K, Bragger U, Lang NP. Subtraction radiography in oral implantology. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997; 17: 220-231.
6. Sewerin IP, Gotfredsen K, Stoltze K. Accuracy of radiographic diagnosis of peri-implant radiolucencies: An in vitro experiment. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997; 8: 299-304.
7. Novaes AB Jr, Souza SLS, Oliveira PT, et al. Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatment placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 17: 377-383.
8. Novaes AB Jr, Vidigal GM Jr, Novaes AB, et al. Immediate implants placed into infected sites: A histomorphometric study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 422-427.
9. McMillan PJ, Riggs ML, Bogle GC, et al. Variables that influence the relationship between osseointegration and bone adjacent to an implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15: 654-661.
10. Buser D, Nydegger T, Oxland T, et al. Interface shear strength of titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a biomechanical study in the maxilla of miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999; 45: 75-83.
11. Lincks J, Boyan BD, Blanchard CR, et al. Response of MG63 osteoblast-like cells to titanium and titanium alloy is dependent on surface roughness and composition. Biomaterials. 1998; 19: 2219-2232.
12. Lazzara RJ, Testori T, Trisi P, et al. A human histologic analysis of osseotite and machined surfaces using implants with 2 opposing surfaces. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1999; 19: 117-129.
13. Nasr HF, Meffert RM. A proposed radiographic index for assessment of the current status of osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993; 8: 323-328.
14. Sunden S, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Accuracy and precision in the radiographic diagnosis of clinical instability in Branemark dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995; 6: 220-226.
15. Evans GH, Mendez AJ, Caudill RF. Loaded and nonloaded titanium versus hydroxyapatite-coated threaded implants in the canine mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11: 360-371.
16. Block MS, Kent JN, Kay JF. Evaluation of hydroxylapatite-coated titanium dental implants in dogs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987; 45: 601-607.
17. Gammage DD, Bowman AE, Meffert RM, et al. Histologic and scanning electron micrographic comparison of the osseous interface in loaded IMZ and Integral implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1990; 10: 124-135.
18. Weber HP, Buser D, Donath K, et al. Comparison of healed tissues adjacent to submerged and non-submerged unloaded titanium dental implants. A histometric study in beagle dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7: 11-19.
19. Caulier H, Naert I, Kalk W, et al. The relationship of some histologic parameters, radiographic evaluations, and Periotest measurements of oral implants: an experimental animal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 380-386.
20. Evian CI. A comparison of hydroxyapatite-coated Micro-Vent and pure titanium Swede-Vent implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11: 639-644.
21. Stentz WC, Mealey BL, Gunsolley JC, et al. Effects of guided bone regeneration around commercially pure titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated dental implants: II. Histologic analysis. J Periodontol. 1997; 68: 933-949.
22. Cochran DL, Nummikoski PV, Higginbottom FL, et al. Evaluation of an endosseous titanium implant with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface in the canine mandible: Radiographic results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7: 240-252.
23. Grondahl K, Lekholm U. The predictive value of radiographic diagnosis of implant instability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 59-64.