토끼 경골에서 치과용 임프란트의 이중 산부식 및 양극 산화 표면처리에 따른 조직계측학적 연구

  • Han, Ye-Sook (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Kim, Il-Kyu (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Chang, Keum-Soo (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Park, Tae-Hwan (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Inha University) ;
  • Jeon, Won (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Medicine, Inha University)
  • 한예숙 (인하대학교 의과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 김일규 (인하대학교 의과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 장금수 (인하대학교 의과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 박태환 (인하대학교 의과대학 구강악안면외과학교실) ;
  • 전원 (인하대학교 의과대학 구강악안면외과학교실)
  • Published : 2006.09.30


This study was performed to evaluate the effects of three different implant surface treatments to the bone formation during osseous healing period under unloading conditions. Machined, double-acid etched and anodic oxidized implants were inserted into tibia of 3.0 - 3.5 kg NZ white male rabbits and 2 animals of each group were sacrificed at 2, 4 and 8 weeks. The specimens containing implant was dehydrated and embedded into hard methylmethacrylate plastic. After grinding to $50{\mu}m$, the specimens were stained with Villanueva bone stain. From each specimen, histomorphometric evaluation and the bone implant contact rate were analysed with optical microscope. The results were as follows; 1. In the scanning electronic microscopic examination, machined surface implant had several shallow and paralleled scratches on plain surface, double acid-etched implant had lots of minute wrinkles, rough valley and also irregularly located craters that looked like waves, anodic oxidized surface implant had porosity that minute holes were wholly distributed on the surface. 2. After 2 weeks of implantation, the percentages of bone-to-implant contact in the machined implant, double acid-etched implant and anodic oxidized implant were 26.85%, 62.64% and 59.82%, after 4 weeks of implantation they were 64.29%, 77.85% and 75.23%, and after 8 weeks they were 82.66%, 85.34% and 86.39%. 3. After 2 weeks of implantation, the percentages of bone area between threads in the machined implant, double acid-etched implant and anodic oxidized implant were 21.55%, 42.81%, and 40.33%, after 4 weeks of implantation they were 49.32%, 62.60% and 75.56%, and after 8 weeks they were 71.62%, 87.73% and 83.94%. In summary, percentages of implant surface contacted to bone trabeculae and bone formation area inside threads in double acid-etched implants and anodic oxidized implants were greater than machined implants in early healing stage. These results suggest that double acid-etched and anodic oxidized surface implants could reduce the healing period for osseointegration and may enable to do early function.



  1. Kinni M, Hokama N, Caputo AA : Force transfer by osseointegration implants devices. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 8 : 151, 1993
  2. Branemark PI, Breine U, Adell R et al : Intraosseous anchorage of dental prostheses. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 3 : 81, 1996
  3. Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T : Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago. Quintessence 11, 1985
  4. Albreksson T : Osseointegrated titanuim implants. Acta Orthop Scand 52 : 155, 1981 https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678108991776
  5. Zarb GA, Albrektsson T : A requiem for the periodontal ligament (guest editorial). Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 11 : 88, 1991
  6. Linkow LI : Endosseous oral implantology. A 7-year progress report. Dent Clin North Am 14 : 185, 1970
  7. Albrektsson T, Dahl E, Enbom L : Osseointegrated oral implants. A Swedish multicenter study of 8139 consecutively inserted nobelpharma implants. J Periodontal 59 : 287, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1988.59.5.287
  8. Chehroudi B, McDonnell D, Brunette DM : The effects of micromachined surfaces on formation of bonelike tissue on subcutaneous implants as assessed by radiography and computer image processing. J Biomed Mater Res 34 : 279, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19970305)34:3<279::AID-JBM2>3.0.CO;2-H
  9. Wennerberg A, Hallgren C, Johansson C et al : Histomorphometric evaluation of screw-shaped implants each prepared with surface roughness. Clin Oral Implants Res 9 : 11, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090102.x
  10. Hahn H, Palich W : Preliminary evaluation of porous metal surfaced titanuim for orthopedic implants. J Biomed Mater Res 4 : 571, 1970 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820040407
  11. Nevins ML, Karimbux NY, Weber HP : Wound healing around endosseous implants in experimental diabetes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13 : 620, 1998
  12. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Jonsson K et al : The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 2 : 81, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020206.x
  13. Bides MW, Misch CE : Issues in bone mechanics related to oral implants. Implant Dent 4 : 289, 1992
  14. Rangert B, Sullivan R, Jemt T : Load factor control for implants in the posterior partially edentulous segment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 12 : 360, 1997
  15. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B et al : A Histomorphometric and removal torque study of screwshaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implant Res 6 : 24, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060103.x
  16. Sennerby 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 7 : 62, 1992
  17. Johansson C, Albreksson T : Integration of screw implants in the rabbit: A 1-year follow up removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral maxillofac Implants 2 : 69, 1987
  18. Scatzker J, Hom JC, Smith G : The holding power of orthopedic screw in vivo. Clin. Orthp 108 : 115, 1975 https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197505000-00019
  19. Vangness CT, Carter DR, Frankel VH : In vitro evaluation of loosening characteristics of self-tapped and non-selftapped cortical bone screw. Clin Orthp 157 : 279, 1981
  20. Yamagami A, Yoshihara Y, Suwa F : Mechanical and histologic examination of titanium alloy material treated by sandblasting and anodic oxidation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20 : 48, 2005
  21. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T : Suggested guidline for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 15 : 331, 2000
  22. Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP et al : Removal torque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13 : 611, 1998
  23. Sul Y, Johansson CB, Jeong Y et al : Resoanance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. Clin Oral Implants Res 13(3) : 252, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130304.x
  24. Albrektsson T, Jacobsson M : Bone-metal interface in osseointegration, J Prosthet Dent 57 : 597, 1987 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(87)90344-1
  25. Vernino A, Kohles S, Hoit RA et al : Dual-etched implants loaded after 1-and 2-month healing periods. A histologic comparison in baboons. Int J Periodonics Restorative Dent 22 : 399, 2002
  26. Lazzara RJ, Testori T, Trisi P et al : A human histologic analysis of Osseotite and machined surfaces using implants with 2 opposing surfaces. Int J Periodontic Restorative Dent 19 : 117, 1999
  27. Testori T, Fabbro MD, Szmukler S et al : Immediate occlusal loading of Osseotite implants in the completely edentulous mandible. Oral Maxillofac Implants 18(4) : 544, 2003
  28. Trisi P, Lazzara R, Rao W et al : Bone-implant contact and bone quality: Evaluation of expected and actual bone contact on machined and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Periodontics Restoative Dent 22(6) : 535, 2003
  29. Stach RM, Kohles SS : A meta-analysis examining the clinical survivability of machined-surfaced and Osseotite implants in poor-quality bone. Implant Dent 12(1) : 87, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ID.0000042507.37401.6F
  30. Weng D, Hoffmeyer M, Hurzeler MB et al : Osseotite vs. machined surface in poor bone quality. A study in dogs. Clin Oral Implant Res 14(6) : 703, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00955.x
  31. Kim Y, Koak J, Chang I et al : A histomorphometric analysis of the effects of various surface treatment methods on osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 : 349, 2003
  32. Zechner W, Tangl S, Furst G et al : Osseous healing characteristics of three different implant types - A histologic and histomorphometric study in mini-pigs. Clinical Oral Implants Research 14 : 150, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140203.x
  33. Ivanoff CJ, Widmark G, Johansson C et al : Histologic evaluation of bone response to oxidized and turned titanium micro-implants in human jaw bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18 : 341, 2003
  34. Misch CE : Contemporary implant dentistry, Mosby Co. 1999, p.235