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

Abstract

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.

Effect of systemic antiresorptive medication on the histopathological parameters of implant osseointegration in an in vivo rodent study

“…However, it could be shown in a preclinical study, that both materials osseointegrated equally, so without significant difference [ 31 ]. Hou et al [ 32 ] evaluated the osseointegration of titanium implants in rats with systemic zoledronate administration and found that bone-to-implant contact was negatively influenced by the drugs. Similarly, Dikicier et al [ 33 ] demonstrated that there is an unfavorable implant osseointegration regarding the BIC value after administering systemic zoledronic acid in rats.…”

Biological Effect of Single or Combined Pharmacological Therapy Using Alendronate and Simvastatin on Implant Osseointegration: An In Vivo Study in Healthy and Osteoporotic Rat Models

“…Pre-clinical studies have already been performed to study the effect of such treatments on peri-implant bone regeneration in both healthy and osteoporotic animal models [9,18,19,[33][34][35]. Despite existing evidence that single treatment with BPs or simvastatin can enhance bone formation around dental implants in healthy and osteoporotic animal models, only limited work has been dedicated toward the effect of combined administration of anti-resorptive and anabolic agents [22][23][24][25]36,37]. In addition, there is a wide variation in the route of administration of such pharmacological agents, the timing in relation to osteoporosis induction and subsequent implant placement, as well as implantation time.…”

Preventing Peri-implantitis: The Quest for a Next Generation of Titanium Dental Implants

“…Novel biomaterials in the oral microenvironment need to be studied for extended periods to evaluate cytocompatibility. Such responses are tested under in vitro conditions over long time intervals using cell viability assays, expression of select proteins, such as collagen type 1 and alkaline phosphatase, the mineralization of dentin matrix, and the inflammatory cytokine expression in dental pulp cells, gingival fibroblasts, and osteoblast cells. − Ivanovski and colleagues have performed such extensive studies on biocompatibility of implants. ,− In one study, the osseointegration of commercially available hydrophobic SLA and hydrophilic SLActive implants were compared upon placement into augmented maxillary sinuses of sheep for up to 4 weeks . It was found that the hydrophilic implant surface had a significantly greater percentage of bone to implant contact and tissue composition than the hydrophobic implants.…”