The Implant Surface and Its Role in Affecting the Dynamic Processes of Bone Remodeling by Means of Distance Osteogenesis: A Comparative In Vivo Study

Thiem, Daniel G. E.; Adam, Martin; Ganz, Cornelia; Gerber, Thomas; Kämmerer, Peer W.

doi:10.11607/jomi.6729

Cited by 11 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By April 2020, a total of 128 studies had been gathered and subsequently assessed by the reviewers. From these, 92 studies were removed due to their being in vitro trials, duplicates, systematic reviews, or irrelevant, leaving a total of 30 studies: 27 were carried out on animals [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ] and 3 on humans [ 23 , 24 , 25 ] ( Figure 2 “Flowchart”). Table 3 and Table 4 provide a general description of the details of each study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In animal studies, ISQ was reported by 2 studies [ 26 , 27 ], both of which showed an increase when HA and alumina bioactive surfaces were used. BIC was reported in 11 studies [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]; BIC and BA together—5 studies [ 28 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 39 ]; RTT was reported in a study using rat tibiae where machined Ti surfaces and HA coated surfaces were compared [ 48 ]; RE (microcomputed tomography) is reported in 2 studies [ 31 , 34 ], SF—in one study [ 47 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen studies used rabbits as animal models [ 23 , 27 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 49 ], 5—pigs [ 28 , 34 , 41 , 44 , 51 ], 4—dogs [ 29 , 46 , 47 , 52 ], 3—rats [ 33 , 35 , 42 ], 2—goat and non-human primates [ 36 , 50 ]. Sixteen modifications of the Ti surface were used, the most used bioactive surface being HA [ 27 , 29 , 36 , 44 , 46 , 49 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study of Germanier and colleagues [ 51 ] who compared SLA surfaces (sandblasted large-grit acid-etched) with surfaces modified by a bioactive peptide found significant differences in the extent of BIC during the early stages of bone regeneration (RGD (Arg–Gly–Asp)-SLA 61.68 ± 4.21, SLA 43.62 ± 10.79), reporting the highest statistical significance ( p < 0.001) in terms of peri-implant bone growth among all the included studies. All animal studies [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ] reported an increase in peri-implant bone formation when using the surfaces studied, as compared to control surfaces ( p > 0.05), 6 of them reporting the best results ( p < 0.01) in the formation of peri-implant bone in the surfaces studied [ 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 45 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The average STROBE and ARRIVE scores were 15.13 ± 2.08 and 17.7 ± 1.4, respectively. According to the ARRIVE checklist, the study by Mistry et al obtained the highest scores [ 25 ]; item 11 (accommodation and handling of animals) was only reported in 5 studies [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]; items 19, 20, and 21 (3Rs reported, adverse events, and study limitations) were not reported in any of the included studies. The maximum scores were achieved in the studies by Cho et al, 2019, Łukaszewska-Kuska et al, 2019, Romero-Ruiz et al, 2019, and Thiem et al, 2019 [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Bioactive Surfaces vs. Conventional Surfaces in Titanium Dental Implants: A Comparative Systematic Review

López-Valverde

Flores-Fraile

Ramı́rez

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal studies and the scarce clinical trials available that have been conducted suggest that bioactive surfaces on dental implants could improve the osseointegration of such implants. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of osseointegration of titanium (Ti) dental implants using bioactive surfaces with that of Ti implants using conventional surfaces such as sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) or similar surfaces. Applying the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the MEDLINE, PubMed Central and Web of Science databases were searched for scientific articles in April 2020. The keywords used were “dental implants”, “bioactive surfaces”, “biofunctionalized surfaces”, and “osseointegration”, according to the question: “Do bioactive dental implant surfaces have greater osseointegration capacity compared with conventional implant surfaces?” Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. 128 studies were identified, of which only 30 met the inclusion criteria: 3 clinical trials and 27 animal studies. The average STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) and ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) scores were 15.13 ± 2.08 and 17.7±1.4, respectively. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was reported in 3 studies; removal torque test (RTT)—in 1 study; intraoral periapical X-ray and microcomputed tomography radiological evaluation (RE)—in 4 studies; shear force (SF)—in 1 study; bone-to-implant contact (BIC)—in 12 studies; and BIC and bone area (BA) jointly—in 5 studies. All animal studies reported better bone-to-implant contact surface for bioactive surfaces as compared to control implants with a statistical significance of p < 0.05. Regarding the bioactive surfaces investigated, the best results were yielded by the one where mechanical and chemical treatment methods of the Ti surfaces were combined. Hydroxyapatite (HA) and calcium–phosphate (Ca–Ph) were the most frequently used bioactive surfaces. According to the results of this systematic review, certain bioactive surfaces have a positive effect on osseointegration, although certain coating biomolecules seem to influence early peri-implant bone formation. Further and more in-depth research in this field is required to reduce the time needed for osseointegration of dental implants.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bioactive Surfaces vs. Conventional Surfaces in Titanium Dental Implants: A Comparative Systematic Review

López-Valverde

Flores-Fraile

Ramı́rez

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The role of titanium surface micromorphology in MG-63 cell motility during osteogenesis

Jia

Wang

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different surface micromorphologies influence osteoblast movements and impact the osteogenesis around implants. In this study, a biomimetic chip that simulates the microenvironment of the implant and bone in vitro was developed (tissue-on-chip of group T and group C) to study the correlation of cell movement velocity (CMV), direction (CMD), acceleration (CMA), and cell attachment number (CA) with the surface micromorphology of the Titanium material. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was used for flow analysis. Changes in intraosseous pressure (IOP), local blood perfusion index (LBPI), new bone microstructure, microvessel density (MVD), and bone-implant contact (BIC) in beagle dogs were detected as implant surface alterations. Surface skewness (Ssk) and surface arithmetic mean height (Sa) were the most important negative factors for high CMV, accounting for 51% and 32%, respectively, of all the influencing factors. Higher Ssk (SskT > 0, SskC < 0) and Sa (SaT > SaC) resulted in lower CMV (CMVT:CMVC = 0.41:1), greater CA (CAT:CAC = 1.44:1), and higher BIC (BICT:BICC = 3.06:1) (P < 0.05). The surface micromorphology influenced the CMD of MG-63 cells within 20 μm from the material surface. However, it could not regulate the IOP, LBPI, MVD, new bone microstructure, or CMD (P > 0.05).

show abstract

In vivo comparison of a granular and putty form of a sintered and a non-sintered silica-enhanced hydroxyapatite bone substitute material

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improved handling characteristics of bone substitute materials may facilitate surgical handling. However, the respective modifications should not alter the biological activity. For comparison of a granular and a putty form of two silicaenhanced bone substitute materials, in 30 rabbits, bilateral bone defects were created in the femoral condyle and randomly filled with (1) sintered, silica-enhanced (0.8 wt%) hydroxyapatite (ACg, n ¼ 15); (2) ACg plus resorbable polymer (ACp, n ¼ 15); (3) non-sintered silica-enhanced hydroxyapatite (hydroxyapatite/SiO 2 ratio:61:39 wt%; NBg, n ¼ 15); and (4) NBg plus matrix of resorbable polymer (NBp, n ¼ 15). After 4, 8, and 12 weeks, respectively, newformed bone, remaining bone substitute materials, and amount of soft tissue were quantified histomorphometrically. After four weeks, new-formed bone was increased for NBg/NBp in which NBp showed significantly less remaining bone substitute materials when compared to ACg. After two months, the highest amount of new-formed bone and the least remaining bone substitute materials were seen for NBg and NBp. ACp had less remaining bone substitute material when compared to ACg. In addition, amount of soft tissue was significantly enhanced in NBp when compared to ACg and NBg. After 12 weeks, NBp had significantly lower remaining bone substitute material when compared to ACg. Amount of soft tissue was significantly increased in NBp when compared to ACg and NBg. In accordance, based on an early increase of new-formed bone, a lower amount of remaining bone substitute material, and as well as a distinct degradation, superiority of the non-sintered bone substitute material to the sintered bone substitute material was seen. The effect of the resorbable polymer to each bone substitute material can be supposed to be rather marginal.

show abstract

The Implant Surface and Its Role in Affecting the Dynamic Processes of Bone Remodeling by Means of Distance Osteogenesis: A Comparative In Vivo Study

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

Bioactive Surfaces vs. Conventional Surfaces in Titanium Dental Implants: A Comparative Systematic Review

Bioactive Surfaces vs. Conventional Surfaces in Titanium Dental Implants: A Comparative Systematic Review

The role of titanium surface micromorphology in MG-63 cell motility during osteogenesis

In vivo comparison of a granular and putty form of a sintered and a non-sintered silica-enhanced hydroxyapatite bone substitute material

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About