Journal Browser Advanced Search Help
Journal Browser Advanced search HELP
-
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2019 Feb;49(1):25-38. English. Original Article. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2019.49.1.25
Lee J , Yoo JM , Amara HB , Lee YM , Lim YJ , Kim H , Koo KT .
Department of Periodontics, One-Stop Specialty Center, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Periodontology, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea. periokoo@snu.ac.kr, ymlee@snu.ac.kr
Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.
Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Health Policy and Management, Korea University College of Health Science, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active®), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive®), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive®).

Methods

The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant surface×3 healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed.

Results

Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.

Copyright © 2019. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.