Hard and soft tissue responses to implant made of three different materials with microgrooved collar in a dog model

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to assess hard and soft tissue around dental implants made of three different materials with microgrooves on the collar surface. Microgrooved implants were inserted in the mandibles of five male beagles. Implants were made of three kinds of material; titanium (Ti), yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP) and ceria partially stabilized zirconia/alumina nanocomposite (Ce-TZP/AlO). The animals were euthanatized at three months after implantation, and harvested tissue was analyzed by means of histology. All kinds of implant were osseointegrated, and there were no significant differences in any histomorphometric parameters among the three groups of microgrooved implants made of different materials. Within the limitations of this study, implants with microgrooves integrated into the surrounding bone tissue, without statistically significant differences among the three tested materials, Ti, Y-TZP, and Ce-TZP/AlO.

The effect of different implant abutment materials on the stress distribution to the bone implant contact

“…This was supported by the scanning electron microscope images showing more intact bone implant contact with very narrow gab in some areas and no gab in the most of the surfaces in BIOHPP groups, this reinforced the fact that peek material is a more flexible material with low modulus of elasticity which transmits less forces to the bone and enhanced more bone implant contact(BIC). 16 The aim of Igarashi et al 17 was to examine the changes and improvements of the hard and soft tissue around dental implant using three different materials in dog models with micro grooved collar in a dog model. They found that the BIC to be largest in Ce-TZP/Al2O3-g (the most flexible material) followed by Ti-g and Y-TZP-g. All groups showed average mean of BIC% was more than 60% which in agree with our research work.…”

Oral Tissue Interactions and Cellular Response to Zirconia Implant-Prosthetic Components: A Critical Review

“…As a result, intraosseous implants, components for implants and oral prostheses made from ZrO 2 have attracted the attention of researchers and clinicians due to their biocompatibility properties ( Table 2 ). Materials made from ZrO 2 have consistently shown better biological reactions in periodontal and epithelial tissues where most of the cells are fibroblasts, red-blood cells, platelets, defense and epithelial cells [ 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 ]. In addition, these cells are crucial for the short and long-term success of biomaterials placed in the oral environment although their original task is to protect against contamination from the external environment.…”

“…Moreover, HGF-1 cells were found to not spread properly on micro-rugged ZrO 2 surfaces, performing better on smooth surfaces [ 89 ]. Current systematic reviews have revealed the lack of in-depth information to compare the performance of dental components made of ZrO 2 with regards to adhesion and soft tissue quality, suggesting the need for further preclinical studies in this area of research [ 90 , 91 ] This contrast of ideas and properties demonstrates that knowledge concerning the best surface treatment for zirconia to stimulate collagen cell/fiber adhesion and orientation is still not entirely clear, however, the results so far suggest promising clinical and physiological advantages of modified surface ZrO 2 dental components ( Figure 4 ) [ 92 ].…”

The Early Adhesion Effects of Human Gingival Fibroblasts on Bovine Serum Albumin Loaded Hydrogenated Titanium Nanotube Surface

“…The soft tissue around the implant is weaker than that of natural teeth, which is more prone to the penetration of bacteria [ 2 ]. If the soft tissue sealing is enhanced, the risk of bacteria invasion and apical migration of the junctional epithelium can be reduced, which can further lower the risk of peri-implant inflammation [ 3 , 4 ]. According to Gristina’s theory of surface competition [ 5 ], soft tissue cells and oral bacteria compete for the limited binding sites on the biomaterials surface; therefore, increased numbers and diversity of soft tissue cells is considered to reduce the adhesion of bacteria at an early time point.…”