Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of Osseointegration of Five Different Surfaced Titanium Implants.
Dundar, Serkan; Yaman, Ferhan; Bozoglan, Alihan; Yildirim, Tuba Talo; Kirtay, Mustafa; Ozupek, Muhammet Fatih; Artas, Gokhan.
Afiliación
  • Dundar S; Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Firat University, Elazig.
  • Yaman F; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Private Practice, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
  • Bozoglan A; Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Firat University, Elazig.
  • Yildirim TT; Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Firat University, Elazig.
  • Kirtay M; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Private Practice, Toronto, Canada.
  • Ozupek MF; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Firat University.
  • Artas G; Department of Medical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Elazig, Turkey.
J Craniofac Surg ; 29(7): 1991-1995, 2018 Oct.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29621087
The topography, chemical features, surface charge, and hydrophilic nature of titanium implant surfaces are crucial factors for successful osseointegration. This study aimed to investigate the bone implant contact (BIC) ratio of titanium dental implants with different surface modification techniques using the rat femoral bone model. Sandblasted and acid washed (SL-AW), sandblasted (SL), resorbable blast material (RBM), microarc (MA), and sandblasted and microarc (SL-MA) surfaces were compared in this study. Forty male Sprague-Dawley rats were used in this study. The rats were divided into 5 equal groups (n = 8), and totally 40 implants were integrated into the right femoral bones of the rats. The rats were sacrificed 12 weeks after the surgical integration of the implants. The implant surface-bone tissue interaction was directly observed by a light microscope, and BIC ratios were measured after the nondecalcified histological procedures. Bone implant contact ratios were determined as follows: SL-AW: 59.26 ±â€Š14.36%, SL: 66.01 ±â€Š9.63%, RBM: 63.53 ±â€Š11.23%, MA: 65.51 ±â€Š10.3%, and SL-MA: 68.62 ±â€Š6.6%. No statistically significant differences were found among the 5 different surfaced titanium implant groups (P > 0.05). Our results show that various implant surface modification techniques can provide favorable bone responses to the BIC of dental implants.
Asunto(s)
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Titanio / Implantes Dentales / Oseointegración Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: J Craniofac Surg Asunto de la revista: ODONTOLOGIA Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Titanio / Implantes Dentales / Oseointegración Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: J Craniofac Surg Asunto de la revista: ODONTOLOGIA Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos