Histomorphometric and Quantitative Histochemical Analysis of Periimplantation Zone in Patients With Different Bone Mineral Density Within Dental Implantation

Abstract

Background: The aim of the work is to study histomorphometric and histochemical properties of jaw bone loss in patients with full or partial edentulism, need to restoring their dentition integrity by dental implantation. Patients and methods: Cytological studies were carried out in 83 patients, among which normal bone mass was observed in 28 patients (17 women and 11 men), osteopenia in 26 patients (17 women and 9 men), osteoporosis in 29 (19 women and 10 men) patients. Histological examination of bone biopsies were performed in 76 patients, among which normal bone mass was observed in 22 (16 women and 6 men , osteopenia in 26 patients (17 women and 9 men), osteoporosis in 28 (19 women and 9 men) patients. Results: Histomorphometric analysis of «implant–bone» contact in the entire length of the joint in patients with normal bone mass was 61,8±3,7%, with osteopenia was 51,6±3,0%, with osteoporosis was 46,1±2,8%. The intensity of bone remodeling in patients with normal bone mass was 2,7±0,19, in patients with osteopenia was 2,2±0,14, in patients with osteoporosis was 1,8±0,11. This demonstrates the significant difference between the patients with normal bone mass and osteoporotic patients. The «implant–bone» interface in osteoporotic patients was significantly lower than in patients with normal bone mass. Conclusion: Histomorphometric studies and quantitative histochemical analysis revealed that the decrease of bone mineral mass in patients often combined with a decrease of the «implant surface–bone» site contact area, with atrophy and with hypoplasia of perimplant tissues.

Effects of aspirin-loaded graphene oxide coating of a titanium surface on proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of MC3T3-E1 cells

“…During the early stages of implant placement, the inflammation around the implant increases because of the heat and excess pressure produced by drilling and screwing the implant into the bone, which hinders the growth of bone into the implants and results in weak bonding between the bone and implants 4 – 6 . In particular, the risk of failure is greatly increased for patients with systemic diseases such as diabetes 7 and osteoporosis 8 . Many previous studies have proven that the surface properties of an implant strongly influence its biological behaviour.…”