Bone healing dynamics associated with 3 implants with different surfaces: histologic and histomorphometric analyses in dogs

Abstract

Purpose This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active ® ), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive ® ), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive ® ). Methods The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant surface×3 healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed. Results Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO. Conclusions Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.

Bioactive Surfaces vs. Conventional Surfaces in Titanium Dental Implants: A Comparative Systematic Review

“…By April 2020, a total of 128 studies had been gathered and subsequently assessed by the reviewers. From these, 92 studies were removed due to their being in vitro trials, duplicates, systematic reviews, or irrelevant, leaving a total of 30 studies: 27 were carried out on animals [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ] and 3 on humans [ 23 , 24 , 25 ] ( Figure 2 “Flowchart”). Table 3 and Table 4 provide a general description of the details of each study.…”

“…In animal studies, ISQ was reported by 2 studies [ 26 , 27 ], both of which showed an increase when HA and alumina bioactive surfaces were used. BIC was reported in 11 studies [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]; BIC and BA together—5 studies [ 28 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 39 ]; RTT was reported in a study using rat tibiae where machined Ti surfaces and HA coated surfaces were compared [ 48 ]; RE (microcomputed tomography) is reported in 2 studies [ 31 , 34 ], SF—in one study [ 47 ].…”

Early Loading of Mandibular Molar Single Implants: 1 Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

“…Unlike preclinical studies of chemically modified SLA implants and HA-coated implants increasing osseointegration at the early bone healing stage [ 20 ], this clinical study failed to confirm the clinical benefits of HA-coated implants or chemically modified SLA implants compared to conventional SLA implants. The effect of implant surface modification might be masked by inclusion criteria such as sufficient bone quantity and good bone quality for this study.…”

“…The study design was a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Three different types of implants were used in this study, as follows: SLActive bone level implant (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland; surface roughness (Ra) = approximately 1.8 μm [ 23 ]; contact angle = 0° [ 24 ]) in the control group, CMI IS-III Active implant (Neobiotech Co., Seoul, Korea; Ra = approximately 3.5 μm; contact angle = 109.2° [ 20 ]) in the experimental group 1, and CMI IS-III HActive implant (Neobiotech Co., Seoul, Korea; Ra = approximately 3.5 μm; contact angle = approximately 4° [ 20 ]) in experiment group 2.…”

“…In addition, implants with increased surface roughness promote osseointegration between the implant and bone, thus reducing the waiting period for bone healing before loading [ 17 , 18 ]. Recently, efforts have been made to minimize the time when stability dips occur by increasing hydrophilicity or bioactivity of the implant surface to promote blood clot formation around the implant and growth factors to move around the implant [ 19 , 20 ].…”