Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지

HISTOMORPHOMETRIC STUDY OF DENTAL IMPLANTS WITH RBM AND SLA SURFACE IN THE RABBIT TIBIA

토끼 경골에서 치과용 임프란트의 RBM 및 SLA 표면처리에 따른 조직계측학적 연구

  • Song, Kook-Hyeon (Dept. of Dentistry, Medical College, Inha University) ;
  • Kim, Il-Kyu (Dept. of Dentistry, Medical College, Inha University) ;
  • Jang, Kum-Soo (Dept. of Dentistry, Medical College, Inha University) ;
  • Kim, Kyu-Nam (Dept. of Dentistry, Medical College, Inha University) ;
  • Choi, Jin-Ung (Dept. of Dentistry, Medical College, Inha University)
  • 송국현 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 김일규 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 장금수 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 김규남 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실) ;
  • 최진웅 (인하대학교 의과대학 치과학교실)
  • Published : 2006.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of several implant surface treatments to the bone formation, by placing Machined implants, 75${\mu}m$ Calcium phosphate-blasted implants and $Al_2O_3$-blasted and acid-etched implants in rabbit tibia through histomorphometric study. Two animals of each group were sacrificed at 2, 4, 8 weeks. The specimens containing the implants were dehydrated and embedded into hard methylmethacrylate plastic. Thereafter, the sections were ground to 50${\mu}m$. The specimens were stained with Villanueva bone stain for a light microscopic study. The results were as follows; 1. When the surface roughness of three different implants was measured by Surfcorder, the Ra of the Machined group, the RBM group and the SLA group was 0.16${\mu}m$, 0.44${\mu}m$, and 1.08${\mu}m$. 2. When examining the surfaces of the implants in the scanning microscope, Machined implant has the smooth surface with a few scratches, RBM implant has the rough surface with curled ridges and valleys, and SLA implant has the rough surface structures such as sharp protruding parts and micropits measuring 1-2${\mu}m$ in diameter. 3. After 2 weeks of implantation, the percentage of bone-to-implant contact of the Machined group, the RBM group and the SLA group was 26.86%, 35.40% and 45.99%. However, its differences between each group decreased during the healing periods. 4. After 2 weeks of implantation, the percentage of bone area inside the threads of the Machined group, the RBM group and the SLA group were 21.55%, 30.43% and 41.18%. However, its difference of bone area between machined group and surface treatment groups was maintained but the difference within the surface treatment groups decreased during the healing periods. In summary, the amount of bone formation in RBM and SLA group was greater than Machined group in early healing stage. These results suggest that RBM and SLA implants can reduce the healing period for osseointegration and may be suitable for early function.

Keywords

References

  1. Branemark PI, Breine U, Adell R et al.: Intraosseous anchorage of dental protheses. I. Experimental studies. Scan J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969;3:81-100 https://doi.org/10.3109/02844316909036699
  2. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U et al.: A long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous. jaw Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-358
  3. Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA et al.: Osseointegrated titanium implants. Acta Ortho Scand 1981;52:155-170 https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678108991776
  4. Ducheyne P: Titanium and calcium phosphate ceramic dental implants, surfaces, coatings and interfaces. J Oral Implantol 1988;14:325-340
  5. Pillar RM: Porous-surfaced metallic implants for orthopedic application. J Biomed Mat Res 1987;21:1-33 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820210106
  6. Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Persson LG et al.: Bone regeneration at implants with turned or rough surfaces in self-contained defects. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:448-455 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00693.x
  7. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S et al.: Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pig. J Biomed Mat Res 1991;25:889-902 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820250708
  8. Carlsson L, Regner L, Johansson C et al.: Bone response to hydroxyapatite-coated and commercially pure titanium implants in the human arthritic knee. J Orthop Res 1994;12:274-285 https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100120218
  9. Donath K, Breuner GA: A method the study of uncalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissue, J Oral Pathol 1982;11:318-326 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0714.1982.tb00172.x
  10. Carlsson L, Rostlund T, Albrektsson B et al. : Osseointegration of titanium implants. Acta Orthop Scand 1986;57:286-289
  11. Ahlqvist J, Borg K, Gunne J et al.: Osseointegrated implants in edentulous jaws: a 2-year longitudinal study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:155-163
  12. Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Enbom L: Ossesintegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted nobelpharma implants. J Periodontol 1988;59:287-296 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1988.59.5.287
  13. Albrektsson T: A multicenter study of osseointegrated oral implants. J Prosth Dent1988;60:75-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(88)90355-1
  14. Drago CJ: Rates of oseeointegration of dental implants with regard to anatomical location. J Prosthodon 1992;1:29-31 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1992.tb00423.x
  15. Yoon HS, Katz JL: Ultrasonic wave propagation in human cortical bone.II. Measurements of elastic properties and microhardness. J Biomechnics 1976;9:459-46 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(76)90089-0
  16. Reilly DT, Burstein AH: The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue. J Biomechnics 1975;8:393-405 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(75)90075-5
  17. Senerby L, Thomsen P, Eriksson L: A morphometric and biomechanical comparison of titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical and cancellous bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:62-71
  18. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B et al.: A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Impl Res 1995;6:24-30 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060103.x
  19. Olsson M, Friberg B, Nilsson H et al.: MKII: a modified selftapping Branemark implant. 3-year results of controlled, pro-spective pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:15-21
  20. Ivanoff CJ, Sennerby L, Lekholm U: Influence of mono and bicortical anchorage on the integration of titanium implants. A study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;25:229-235 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(96)80036-1
  21. Langer B, Langer L, Herrmann I et al.: The wide fixture. A solution for special bone situations and a rescue for the compromised implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:400-408
  22. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B: An animal study of c.p. titanium screwa with differing surface topographies. J Mater Med 1995;6:302-309, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00120275
  23. Cochran DL, Buser D, Bruggenkate CM et al.: The use of reduced healing times on $ITI^{\circledR}$ implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched(SLA) surface: Early results fron clinical trials on $ITI^{\circledR}$ SLAimplants. Clin Oral Impl Res 2002;13:144-153 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130204.x
  24. Mustafa K, Wennerberg A, Wroblewski J et al.: Determining optimal surface roughness of $TiO_2$ blasted titanium implant material for attachment, proliferation and differentiation of cells derived from human mandibular alveolar bone. Clin Oral Impl Res 2001;12:515-525 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120513.x
  25. Martin JY, Schwartz TW, Hummert DM et al.: Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein systhesis of human osteoblast-like cells(MG63). J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:389-401 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820290314
  26. Rosa AL, Beloti MM: Rat bone marrow cell response to titanium and titanium alloy with different surface roughness. Clin Oral Impl Res 2003;14:43-48 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140106.x
  27. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T: Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac implants 2000;15:331-344
  28. Sykaras N, Lacopino AM, Marker VA et al.: Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: Their effect on osseo-integration. A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:675-689
  29. Wennerberg A, Ektessabi A, Albrektsson T et al.: A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillifac Implants 1997;12:486-494
  30. Johansson C, Albrektsson T: Integration of serew implants in the rabbit: A 1-year follow up removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:69-75
  31. Hayakawa T, Yoshinari M, Nemoto K et al.: Effect of surface roughness and calcium phosphate coating on the implant/bone response. Clin Oral Impl Res 2000;11:296-304 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011004296.x
  32. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Linder E et al.: Early bone formation adjacent to rough and turned endosseous implant surfaces. An experimental study in dog. Clin Oral Impl Res 2004;15:381-392 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01082.x