Osseointegration of a New, Ultrahydrophilic and Nanostructured Dental Implant Surface: A Comparative In Vivo Study

Abstract

This study compared the osseointegration of acid-etched, ultrahydrophilic, micro- and nanostructured implant surfaces (ANU) with non-ultra-hydrophilic, microstructured (SA) and non-ultrahydrophilic, micro- and nanostructured implant surfaces (AN) in vivo. Fifty-four implants (n = 18 per group) were bilaterally inserted into the proximal tibia of New Zealand rabbits (n = 27). After 1, 2, and 4 weeks, bone-implant contact (BIC, %) in the cortical (cBIC) and spongious bone (sBIC), bone chamber ingrowth (BChI, %), and the supra-crestal, subperiosteal amount of newly formed bone, called percentage of linear bone fill (PLF, %), were analyzed. After one week, cBIC was significantly higher for AN and ANU when compared to SA (p = 0.01 and p = 0.005). PLF was significantly increased for ANU when compared to AN and SA (p = 0.022 and p = 0.025). After 2 weeks, cBIC was significantly higher in SA when compared to AN (p = 0.039) and after 4 weeks, no significant differences in any of the measured parameters were found anymore. Ultrahydrophilic implants initially improved osseointegration when compared to their non-ultrahydrophilic counterparts. In accordance, ultrahydrophilic implants might be appropriate in cases with a necessity for an accelerated and improved osseointegration, such as in critical size alveolar defects or an affected bone turnover.

Early Loading of Two Implants Supporting Mandibular Overdentures in Geriatric Edentulous Patients: A 12-Year Follow-Up Study

“…It is a surface obtained by coarse-grained sandblasting and subsequent triple acid etching, resulting in a surface that is free of aluminum, free of ions, and free of other types of impurities. There are various works, some recent [48,49], which report that the surface of ultrahydrophilic and nano-structured dental implants can influence the long-term outcome, including survival, success rates, and the development of complications related to the implant, including periimplantitis. Peri-implantitis was more frequent in those patients with a previous history of periodontitis (41.6%) and in patients who smoke (33.3%).…”

How does dental implant macrogeometry affect primary implant stability? A narrative review

“…Implant design is critical in achieving the primary and secondary stability essential for successful osseointegration and long-term implant success. Several important design factors can affect implant stability including implant diameter, implant length, implant thread design, implant surface roughness, and implant shape [ 12 – 15 ]. This narrative review aimed to find an adequate answer to the question: What influence does the macro-design have on the primary stability of dental implants?…”