Effect of biofunctionalized implant surface on osseointegration: a histomorphometric study in dogs

Abstract

Among the different properties that influence bone apposition around implants, the chemical or biochemical composition of implant surface may interfere on its acceptance by the surrounding bone. The aim of this study was to investigate if a biofunctionalization of implant surface influences the bone apposition in a dog model and to compare it with other surfaces, such as a microstructured created by the grit-blasting/acid-etching process. Eight young adult male mongrel dogs had the bilateral mandibular premolars extracted and each one received 6 implants after 12 weeks, totaling 48 implants in the experiment. Four groups of implants were formed with the same microrough topography with or without some kind of biofunctionalization treatment. After histomorphometric analysis, it was observed that the modified microstructured surface with a 'low concentration of the bioactive peptide' provided a higher adjacent bone density (54.6%) when compared to the other groups (microstructured + HA coating = 46.0%, microstructured only = 45.3% and microstructured + 'high concentration of the bioactive peptide' = 40.7%), but this difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, biofunctionalization of the implant surface might interfere in the bone apposition around implants, especially in terms of bone density. Different concentrations of bioactive peptide lead to different results.

A systematic review and meta‐analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation

“…They reported that the obtained data failed to provide an effect on bone formation of the collagen coating. 29 X (*) X (*) X (*) 3. de Barros et al 11 X (***) X (**/****) 4. Ferguson et al 20 X (*/***) X (*/***) X (*/****) 5.…”

“…The inorganic surface group consisted of CaP coatings (four studies 23,[26][27][28] ) and HA coatings (four studies 22,26,29,30 ). The results of this group need to be interpreted with caution, as only studies comparing inorganic coatings to organic coatings were included in this review.…”

Effect of implant design and bone density in primary stability

“…Statistically, the Master Porous and Master Screw implants were equals in the insertion torque of all densities and shows that the presence of surface treatment did not influence the results, despite having selected the use of machined implants (Master Screw and Conect Cônico) as negative control, due to better biomechanical characteristics of the treated implants, which its surface roughness, theoretically promotes a larger area of bone-implant contact [18][19] . So, our results contradict studies that found a higher primary stability at treated implants 8,[19][20] .…”

Biological Functionalization of Dental Implants with Fibronectin : A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

“…Furthermore, the biological functionalization of implant's surfaces, by adding biomimetic bioactive substances to improve its biological characteristics, has also been recently investigated. (5)(6)(7) Generally, the bone-to-implant interaction is complex and does not depend on surface topography only. Chemical or biochemical composition of implant surface also plays a key role in the early stages of bone formation.…”