Tissue response to titanium implantation in the rat maxilla, with special reference to the effects of surface conditions on bone formation

Abstract

Tissue responses to titanium implantation with two different surface conditions in our established implantation model in rat maxillae were investigated by light and transmission electron microscopy and by histochemistry for tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAPase) activity. Here we used two types of implants with different surface qualities: titanium implants sandblasted with Al2O3 (SA-group) and implants coated with hydroxyapatite (HA-group). In both groups, bone formation had begun by 5 days postimplantation when the inflammatory reaction had almost disappeared in the prepared bone cavity. In the SA-group, however, the bone formation process in the bone cavity was almost identical to that shown in our previous report using smooth surfaced implants (Futami et al. 2000): new bone formation, which occurred from the pre-existing bone toward the implant, was preceded by active bone resorption in the lateral area with a narrow gap, but not so in the base area with a wide gap. In the HA-group, direct bone formation from the implant toward the pre-existing bone was recognizable in both lateral and base areas. Many TRAPase-reactive cells were found near the implant surface. On the pre-existing bone, new bone formation occurred with bone resorption by typical osteoclasts. Osseointegration around the implants was achieved by postoperative day 28 in both SA- and HA-groups except for the lateral area, where the implant had been installed close to the cavity margin. These findings indicate that ossification around the titanium implants progresses in different patterns, probably dependent on surface properties and quality.

Surface analysis of commercially pure titanium implant retrieved from rat bone. part 1: Initial biological response of sandblasted surface

“…In other words, even for a long time after implantation, compounds like HA would not precipitate on the titanium surface -which meant that the titanium surface would not play the role of a scaffold at the initial period during new bone formation. The latter suggestion was consistent with the histological findings of a previous study 13) . Taken together, the claim that calcium phosphate similar to apatite formed naturally on titanium [3][4][5][6][7] is valid for in vitro experiments only.…”

“…Further on tissue response to titanium implants, Nanci et al 12) reported on the presence of a very thin, membranous layer at the bone-implant interface at 21 days after implantation. On the effects of surface conditions on bone formation, Shirakura et al 13) examined the tissue response to titanium implantation in rat maxilla using two types of implants with different surface qualities: sandblasted or HA-coated. In the HAcoated group, new bone formation originating from both the implant and the pre-existing bone was recognized at 5 days after implantation.…”

Effect of chronic stress on implant osseointegration into rat's mandible

“…The size of the implants in the literature was 1.15mm in diameter and 3mm in length 9,12 . When contacted, the manufacturer revealed that implants with the above-cited diameters could not have been subjected to surface treatment.…”

Histological evaluation on bone regeneration of dental implant placement sites grafted with a self‐setting α‐tricalcium phosphate cement

“…The former relates to the actual gain in bone volume and to load bearing; the latter represents osseointegration, the direct, functional combination of newly formed bone and an implant. Often, unsuccessful implant treatments show fibrosteal integration rather than osseointegration, mostly due to periodontal disease and abnormal mechanical forces (Bidez and Misch, 1992;Esposito et al, 1998;Fujii et al, 1998;Futami et al, 2000;Listgarten et al, 1991;Ohtsu et al, 1997;Roberts et al, 1992;Shirakura et al, 2003;Steflik et al, 1993). Yet, while the literature provides considerable data on autografts and allografts associated with implants (Berglundh and Lindhe, 1997;Haas et al, 2002;Hagen et al, 1992), only a few studies have examined the histological events at the interface between implants and synthetic bone graft materials (Schliephake et al, 1991).…”