Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform an in vivo histological comparative evaluation of bone formation around titanium (machined and treated surface) and zirconia implants. For the present study were used 50 commercially pure titanium implants grade IV, being that 25 implants with a machined surface (TiM group), 25 implants with a treated surface (TiT group) and, 25 implants were manufactured in pure zirconia (Zr group). The implants (n = 20 per group) were installed in the tibia of 10 rabbits. The implants distribution was randomized (n = 3 implants per tibia). Five implants of each group were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and an optical laser profilometer for surface roughness characterization. Six weeks after the implantation, 10 implants for each group were removed in counter-torque for analysis of maximum torque value. The remaining samples were processed, included in historesin and cut to obtain non-decalcified slides for histomorphological analyses and histomorphometric measurement of the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC%). Comparisons were made between the groups using a 5% level of significance (p < 0.05) to assess statistical differences. The results of removal torque values (mean ± standard deviation) showed for the TiM group 15.9 ± 4.18 N cm, for TiT group 27.9 ± 5.15 N cm and for Zr group 11.5 ± 2.92 N cm, with significant statistical difference between the groups (p < 0.0001). However, the BIC% presented similar values for all groups (35.4 ± 4.54 for TiM group, 37.8 ± 4.84 for TiT group and 34.0 ± 6.82 for Zr group), with no statistical differences (p = 0.2171). Within the limitations of the present study, the findings suggest that the quality of the new bone tissue formed around the titanium implants present a superior density (maturation) in comparison to the zirconia implants.

Can changes in implant macrogeometry accelerate the osseointegration process?: An in vivo experimental biomechanical and histological evaluations

“…Thus, the present study had the aim of evaluated both implant models (regular and new implant mcrogeometry) with the same surface treatment, to verify the importance of this factor (the macrogeometry) in the early time period of osseointegration. Primary stability is a prerequisite for achieving osseointegration of implants [1,12,13,21,25,26]. This results from the mechanical union between the bone and the implant that minimizes micromovements between the two structures and prevents the formation of fibrous tissue at its interface.…”

“…Another biomechanical assay to assess implant osseointegration is the removal torque value (RTv), which provides values on the joint force between bone and implant [1,12,13]. Although this type of test is little used for destroying the sample, it is impossible to perform histology of these pieces, these higher measured values are indicative of a good bone-implant interaction [1], and are also indicative of whether or not mineralization of the newly formed bone occurred on the implant surface. We compare the both groups proposed based on the two time points (3-and 4-weeks) after implantation, with a highly significant and it is thus concluded that there is an important effect between the groups (p < 0.05).…”

“…Osseointegrated titanium implant is frequently used for rehabilitation of loss organs due different causes, mainly trauma or diseases. It has been shown that titanium has properties that stimulate its interaction with bone tissue [1,2], presenting mechanical characteristics that adequately support the physiological stimuli (loads) received when in masticatory function [3]. Moreover, titanium implants show a good degree of predictability and durability, which are demonstrated by clinical studies [4,5].…”

Microgrooves and Microrugosities in Titanium Implant Surfaces: An In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation

“…Animal selection, surgical management and care: Nine white rabbits (New Zealand), weighing between 4 and 4.5 kg, were used for the in vivo analysis. The animals received the standard care and management applied in previous studies performed by our research group [1,2,3]. The international guidelines of animal studies were applied.…”

“…For implantology concepts, the process of osseointegration for titanium implants is defined by the union between the implanted material and the bone tissue. The adequate union between them depends on the physical and chemical characteristics presented by the material, the surgical technique used and the patient’s conditions (general and local) [1,2,3,4]. Regarding the composition of the material, titanium is now used due to its excellent biological and mechanical properties [5,6], even when special treatments are not made on its surface (implants with smooth surfaces).…”