Comparison of chemically and pharmaceutically modified titanium and zirconia implant surfaces in dentistry: a study in sheep

Langhoff, Jens D; Voelter, Katrin; Scharnweber, Dieter; Schnabelrauch, Matthias; Schlottig, Falko; Hefti, Thomas; Kalchofner, Karin; Nuss, Katja; Rechenberg, Brigitte von

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2008.09.008

Cited by 110 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The implant material in all 30 studies was titanium, two studies further investigated zirconia implants. 6,20 Screw-shaped implants were used in 27 studies, three studies applied experimental implant designs. 12,21,22 The mean implant length was 9 mm.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hunziker et al 25 X (*) X (**) X (*) 9. Langhoff et al 6 X (*) X (*/***) X (*/****) 10. Leknes et al 17 X (***) X (*****) 11.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsunclassified

“…5 Besides microtopography, other biophysical factors such as surface chemistry, surface charge, and wettability also have an influence on bone formation. 6 Yet another surface modification to further stimulate osseointegration is the coating of implant surfaces with biological components. [7][8][9] For bone, these may be organic as well as inorganic in nature, and both can potentially influence cellular activity during periimplant healing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Jenny

Jauernik

Bierbaum

et al. 2016

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI -3.9-11.2, p = 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI -0.8-15.0, p = 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference -3.3 pp, 95% CI -16.5-9.9, p = 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation. Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation in comparison to an uncoated titanium reference surface in experimental large animal models. The analysis was structured according to the PRISMA criteriae. Of the1077 studies, 30 studies met the inclusion criteriae. Nineteen studies examined the bone implant contact (BIC) and were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the mean increase in BIC for the test surfaces compared to the reference surfaces was 3.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI 23.9-11.2, p 5 0.339). Analyzing the increase in BIC for specific coated surfaces in comparison to uncoated reference surfaces, inorganic surface coatings showed a significant mean increase in BIC of 14.7 pp (95% CI 10.6-18.9, p < 0.01), extracellular matrix (ECM) surface coatings showed an increase of 10.0 pp (95% CI 4.4-15.6, p < 0.001), and peptide coatings showed a statistical trend with 7.1 pp BIC increase (95% CI 20.8-15.0, p 5 0.08). In this review, no statistically significant difference could be found for growth factor surface coatings (observed difference 23.3 pp, 95% CI 216.5-9.9, p 5 0.6). All analyses are exploratory in nature. The results show a statistically significant effect of inorganic and ECM coatings on periimplant bone formation.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hunziker et al 25 X (*) X (**) X (*) 9. Langhoff et al 6 X (*) X (*/***) X (*/****) 10. Leknes et al 17 X (***) X (*****) 11.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Descriptive Resultsunclassified

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Jenny

Jauernik

Bierbaum

et al. 2016

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Para que se produzca el crecimiento óseo en el defecto, es fundamental que exista un coágulo sanguíneo, la conservación de los osteoblastos y el contacto con el tejido vivo (22,23). Chen y cols., en 2007, presentaron un estudio en el que determinaban que en el caso de defectos óseos superiores a 1,25 mm alrededor del implante se podía sugerir el empleo de injertos de hueso autólogo o biomateriales con o sin membrana (24,25).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Tratamiento de fractura coronorradicular con implante inmediato postextracción Thommen SPI® Element y revisión de la literatura

Muñoz

Platero

Portillo

2013

Avances en Periodoncia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción. El implante inmediato postextracción es aquel que está indicado para sustituir al diente con patología sin posibilidad alguna de tratamiento o en casos tras exodoncia de inclusiones, retenciones y dientes temporales. Teniendo en cuenta que tras la extracción tiene lugar un período de recambio óseo en forma de reabsorción fisiológica reduciendo las dimensiones del reborde alveolar, optamos por la terapia regenerativa con el fin de disminuir las secuelas. En este artículo se revisa la técnica quirúrgica y el manejo de los tejidos blandos mediante el procedimiento proté-sico de los implantes inmediatos postextracción, ilustrado en un caso clínico con una nueva superficie de implante dental. Caso clínico. Mujer de 24 años de edad, no fumadora sin antecedentes médicos de interés, que acude a consulta con dolor agudo de 4 días de evolución en la zona del primer molar inferior derecho que se ha incrementado en el tiempo, con diagnóstico de fractura coronorradicular. El plan de tratamiento comprende: exodoncia de la pieza con el menor trauma posible respetando las paredes alveolares y legrado del alvéolo para la inserción de forma sumergida de un implante SPI ® de titanio autorroscable con superficie rugosa pulida producida por chorreado de arena y grabada térmicamente al ácido de Thommen Medical y regeneración ósea guiada mediante injerto óseo particulado de origen bovino Bio-Oss ® . Después de 6 meses cargamos funcionalmente el implante con corona unitaria atornillada observando su evolución a los 12 y 24 meses tras la intervención. Conclusión. Gracias a los avances en el campo de las superficies, el tratamiento con este nuevo tipo de implante dental ha constituido en este caso una terapéutica de éxito.PALABRAS CLAVE: Fractura coronorradicular, implante inmediato postextracción, implante autorroscable SPI ® , superficie rugosa grabada al ácido, regeneración ósea guiada, biomaterial.

show abstract

“…16 The results demonstrated the great efficiency of implants with treated surfaces, and the literature shows that treating implants with acids, as in the present study, leads to the formation of surface roughness, allowing for greater contact with osteoblastic cells. 9,18,25 When pullout tests are performed, the implant should be completely vertical, so that its pullout re- sistance would be influenced only by the surrounding bone, since if the implant was inclined, part of the bone would be around the implant, resulting in a resistance higher than that obtained. To prevent this, we developed a shield with a circular hole with a diameter smaller than that of the upper portion of the femur, and fixed it to a universal testing machine in which the sample was positioned with the implant, so that, when pulled, the implant would be positioned as vertically as possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro analysis of the influence of surface treatment of dental implants on primary stability

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In vitro analysis of the influence of surface treatment of dental implants on primary stability Abstract: Surface treatment interferes with the primary stability of dental implants because it promotes a chemical and micromorphological change on the surface and thus stimulates osseointegration. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different surface treatments on primary stability by analyzing insertion torque (IT) and pullout force (PF). Eight samples of implants with different surface treatments (TS -external hexagon with acid surface treatment; and MS -external hexagon, machined surface), all 3.75 mm in diameter × 11.5 mm in length, were inserted into segments of artificial bones. The IT of each sample was measured by an electronic torquemeter, and then the pullout test was done with a universal testing machine. The results were subjected to ANOVA (p < 0.05), followed by Tukey's test (p < 0.05). The IT results showed no statistically significant difference, since the sizes of the implants used were very similar, and the bone used was not highly resistant. The PF values (N) were, respectively, TS = 403.75 ± 189.80 and MS = 276.38 ± 110.05. The implants were shown to be different in terms of the variables of maximum force (F = 4.401, p = 0.0120), elasticity in maximum flexion (F = 3.672, p = 0.024), and relative stiffness (F = 4.60, p = 0.01). In this study, external hexagonal implants with acid surface treatment showed the highest values of pullout strength and better stability, which provide greater indication for their use.

show abstract

Comparison of chemically and pharmaceutically modified titanium and zirconia implant surfaces in dentistry: a study in sheep

Cited by 110 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Tratamiento de fractura coronorradicular con implante inmediato postextracción Thommen SPI® Element y revisión de la literatura

In vitro analysis of the influence of surface treatment of dental implants on primary stability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About