Comparison of bone-implant contact and bone-implant volume between 2D-histological sections and 3D-SRµCT slices

Abstract

Histological imaging is still considered the gold standard for analysing bone formation around metallic implants. Generally, a limited number of histological sections per sample are used for the approximation of mean values of peri-implant bone formation. In this study we compared statistically the results of bone-implant contact (BIC) and bone-implant volume (BIV) obtained by histological sections, with those obtained by X-ray absorption images from synchrotron radiation micro-computed tomography (SRμCT) using osseointegrated screw-shaped implants from a mini-pig study. Comparing the BIC results of 3-4 histological sections per implant sample with the appropriate 3-4 SRμCT slices showed a non-signifi cant difference of 1.9 % (p = 0.703). The contact area assessed by the whole 3D information from the SRμCT measurement in comparison to the histomorphometric results showed a non-signifi cant difference in BIC of 4.9 % (p = 0.171). The amount of the bone-implant volume in the histological sections and the appropriate SRμCT slices showed a nonsignifi cant difference by only 1.4 % (p = 0.736) and also remains non-signifi cant with 2.6 % (p = 0.323) using the volumetric SRμCT information. We conclude that for a clinical evaluation of implant osseointegration with histological imaging at least 3-4 sections per sample are suffi cient to represent the BIC or BIV for a sample. Due to the fact that in this study we have found a signifi cant intra-sample variation in BIC of up to ± 35 % the selection of only one or two histological sections per sample may strongly infl uence the determined BIC.

Osseointegration of Implants Surface‐Treated with Various Diameters of TiO2 Nanotubes in Rabbit

“…Although histomorphometry is a destructive method and there is uncertainty whether the analysis of histological sections represents the entire osseous status, the histomorphometric evaluation of the bone implant contact (BIC) and bone area within the threads (BV) was established as the most common method and was applied in the majority of subsequent studies [29][30][31]. In histomorphometric analyses, BIC and BV results at 12 weeks were significantly higher than at 4 weeks ( < 0.05).…”

Effects of calcium ions on titanium surfaces for bone regeneration

“…This may lead to a better three-dimensional representation and also facilitate establishing correlations with micro-CT scanner data. [36] In summary and relevant for a wide range of applications in implantology, this study demonstrates that calcium ion-modified titanium surfaces can increase osseointegration in low vascularized bone types. The roles of free calcium ions at several stages of bone regeneration may be responsible for this differential response.…”

Differences of Post-Placement Bone Implant Contact (BIC) Value of Dental Implant Coated and Not Coated With Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP)

“…However, other studies using PDGFs for bone grafts or bone replacements do not report considerable attainment in terms of bone osteogeneration or on the surface of the dental implant. (Wang, 2015;Bernhardt et al, 2012) …”