The effects of implant topography on osseointegration under estrogen deficiency induced osteoporotic conditions: Histomorphometric, transcriptional and ultrastructural analysis

Du, Zhibin; Xiao, Yin; Hashimi, Saeed Mujahid; Hamlet, Stephen; Ivanovski, Sašo

doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2016.06.035

Cited by 51 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The implants were inserted mainly into the rat tibia (65.85%) or in the femur (19.5%). In 1 study, implants were placed into the medullary canal of the femur, in 3 studies, they were placed into healed post‐extraction sockets and in 1 into the maxillary arch …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32 The implants were inserted mainly into the rat tibia (65.85%) or in the femur (19.5%). In 1 study, implants were placed into the medullary canal of the femur, 33 in 3 studies, they were placed into healed post-extraction sockets 29,34,35 and in 1 into the maxillary arch. 36 Rabbits were used in 10 studies (17.54%) and in 60% of these studies, the age of the animals was between 4 and 12 months.…”

Section: Animal Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[48][49][50] Nevertheless, this issue might be successfully overcome by combining ovariectomy with either mechanical unloading 51 or low-calcium diet. 52 Only 4 studies evaluated implants placed in the jawbones, 29,[34][35][36] while in the remaining 53 studies long bones (tibia and femur) were considered. It has been pointed out that tibia in close proximity to the knee joint is characterized by the presence of trabecular bone, which potentially resembles the alveolar bone, while femur has a more pronounced cortical structure, 53 thus it may better resemble the mandible structure.…”

Section: Ovariectomy Induced Bone Loss Does Not Occur In All Bones Butmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Osseointegration in osteoporotic‐like condition: A systematic review of preclinical studies

Dereka

Calciolari

Donos

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteoporosis is one of the most common skeletal disorders affecting a significant percentage of people worldwide. Research data suggested that systemic diseases such as osteoporosis could act as risk factors for osseointegration, jeopardizing the healing process and thus the predictability of dental implant success on compromised patients. It is well accepted that preclinical studies in animal models reproducing the osteoporotic condition are one of the most important stages in the research of new biomaterials and therapeutic modalities. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether osteoporosis compromises dental implant osseointegration in experimental osteoporotic-like conditions. A 3-stage systematic literature research was conducted in MEDLINE via OVID and EMBASE up to and including March 2017. Experimental studies reporting on dental implant osseointegration on different osteoporotic animal models were assessed. The studies had to report on the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) as the primary outcome. ARRIVE guidelines for reporting on animal research were applied to evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias of the studies. Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed qualitatively. The most adopted animal model was the rat. A variability of %BIC values was observed, ranging from 30% to 99% and from 26% to 94% for the healthy and osteoporotic group, respectively. The great majority (47) of the included studies concluded that estrogen deficiency significantly affects BIC values, 9 studies stated that it was not possible to observe statistical differences in BIC between ovariectomized and healthy groups and 1 study did not provide a comparison between the healthy and osteoporotic group. Owing to the great heterogeneity in implant surface, study design, observation time-points, site of implant placement and reported outcomes, a meta-analysis could not be performed. An overall high risk of bias was observed, owing to the limited information on animal housing and husbandry, baseline characteristics and health status, ethical statement and allocation to the experimental groups provided. Although the available studies seem to suggest a lower osseointegration in osteoporotic-like conditions, no robust conclusions can be drawn due to the great heterogeneity and overall low quality of the available studies. Future studies with emphasis on minimizing the possible sources of bias and evaluating osseointegration of dental implants placed into jawbones instead of long bones are warranted.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Animal Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ovariectomy Induced Bone Loss Does Not Occur In All Bones Butmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Osseointegration in osteoporotic‐like condition: A systematic review of preclinical studies

Dereka

Calciolari

Donos

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The core material, manufacturing method, and surface preparation were identical to that used for the commercially available implants available from this manufacturer. The implants had two different surface topographies as classified by Albrektsson and Wennerberg: (a) turned/machined surface or minimally rough (Ra = 0.75 µm) and (b) a moderately rough surface (Ra = 1.27 µm) that was prepared by blasting with 110‐μm‐sized aluminum oxide particles …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, given that good implant survival rates have been demonstrated with minimally rough implant surfaces, the clinical relevance of using modified implant surfaces is likely to be in sites where the quality and/or quantity of bone is less than ideal due to either systemic or local factors. Indeed, previous clinical studies have shown differences in implant survival rates between micro‐roughened and turned in low bone density sites such as in the posterior maxilla and osteoporosis, or compromised healing conditions as is encountered in smokers …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of high‐dose systemic zoledronate administration on osseointegration of implants with different surface topography

Hou

Lee

et al. 2019

J of Periodontal Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To evaluate the influence of systemic zoledronate administration on the osseointegration of titanium implants with different surface topography in rat maxillae. Methods Twenty Sprague‐Dawley rats were divided into two groups—test (bisphosphonate) and control (healthy). Bisphosphonate administration began three weeks prior to implant placement, and the animals received zoledronate (66 μg/kg) three times per week. Forty endosseous implants with a moderately rough (20 implants) or a turned surface (20 implants) were immediately placed bilaterally into extraction sockets of maxillary first molars. Animals were sacrificed after 14 and 28 days of healing, and en bloc specimens were harvested for histological and histomorphometric analysis. Osseointegration was quantified by measuring the percentage of bone‐to‐implant contact. Results Bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) (mean ± SD) values of moderately rough and turned implants at day 14 in test group were 17.62 ± 6.68 and 10.69 ± 1.48, respectively, while in the control group, they were 46.36 ± 5.08 and 33.29 ± 8.89, respectively. At day 28, BIC values of moderately rough and turned implants in the test group were 25.94 ± 7.87 and 7.83 ± 4.30, respectively, while in the control group, they were 72.99 ± 6.60 and 47.62 ± 18.19, respectively. Statistically significant higher BIC values were measured on moderately rough implants compared to turned implants at 28 days, and the control group compared to the test group for both implant surfaces. Histological observations for the control and the test groups demonstrated initial bone formation around moderately rough implants not only on the surface of the parent bone, as was the case with the turned surfaced implants, but also along the implant surface itself. Conclusions Systemic zoledronate administration negatively influences osseointegration. Osseointegration was enhanced adjacent to moderately rough compared to turned implants in both the presence and absence of systemic zoledronate administration. Therefore, topographical surface modification may partially offset the negative impact of zoledronate administration.

show abstract

Modern Approach to Full Arch Immediate Loading: The Simonpieri Technique with PRF and i‐PRF

Simonpieri¹

2017

Platelet Rich Fibrin in Regenerative Dentistry: Biological Background and Clinical Indications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of implant topography on osseointegration under estrogen deficiency induced osteoporotic conditions: Histomorphometric, transcriptional and ultrastructural analysis

Cited by 51 publications

References 70 publications

Osseointegration in osteoporotic‐like condition: A systematic review of preclinical studies

Osseointegration in osteoporotic‐like condition: A systematic review of preclinical studies

The influence of high‐dose systemic zoledronate administration on osseointegration of implants with different surface topography

Modern Approach to Full Arch Immediate Loading: The Simonpieri Technique with PRF and i‐PRF

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About