|
Abstract
January 2008, Vol. 79, No. 1, Pages 150-157
, DOI 10.1902/jop.2008.060413
(doi:10.1902/jop.2008.060413)
Effect of Implant Surface Roughness and Loading on Peri-Implant Bone Formation Katleen Vandamme,* Ignace Naert,* Jozef Vander Sloten,† Robert Puers,‡ and Joke Duyck**Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Biomaterials Research Group, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. †Division of Biomechanics and Engineering Design, Catholic University Leuven. ‡Department of Electrical Engineering – Electronics, Systems, Automation and Technology – Microcircuits and Sensors, Catholic University Leuven. Correspondence: Dr. Joke Duyck, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Biomaterials Research Group, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Fax: 32-16-332309; e-mail: joke.duyck@med.kuleuven.be. Background: Critical factors for the establishment of osseointegration are the implant surface microtopography and the local mechanical environment. The present study evaluated the bone response around a turned (T) and a roughened (R) implant for either an unloaded or a well-controlled loaded situation. Methods: Bone chambers were installed in the tibia of 20 rabbits. In each of the chambers, two identical displacement-controlled loading experiments were performed: 30 μm for 400 cycles at 1 Hz, three times a week for 9 weeks versus 0-μm implant displacement. A linear mixed model and a logistic mixed model with α = 5% were set to study the significant effect of the surface texture on the peri-implant bone response in the unloaded (T-0 μm versus R-0 μm) and the loaded (T-30 μm versus R-30 μm) mode. Results: Results indicated no microtopographic dependence of the bone response further away from the implant in unloaded and loaded conditions. For a load-free implant, osseointegration seemed to occur with a higher incidence at a roughened compared to a turned implant surface. In the presence of loading, the topographic dependency of the osteogenic activity at the interface was overruled by the loading-related bone response, revealing no significant differences in osseointegration incidence between T and R. Conclusion: A predominant effect of the interfacial mechanical environment over the implant surface characteristics on the differentiating cell population is suggested. KEYWORDS: Animals, dental implants, mineralization Cited byJoke Duyck, Livía Corpas, Stephanie Vermeiren, Toru Ogawa, Marc Quirynen, Katleen Vandamme, Reinhilde Jacobs, Ignace Naert. (2010) Histological, histomorphometrical, and radiological evaluation of an experimental implant design with a high insertion torque. Clinical Oral Implants Research no-no Online publication date: 1-Apr-2010. CrossRef Ann Wennerberg, Tomas Albrektsson. (2009) Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20, 172-184 Online publication date: 1-Sep-2009. CrossRef Afsheen Tabassum, Frank Walboomers, Johannes G. C. Wolke, Gert J. Meijer, John A. Jansen. (2009) The Influence of Surface Roughness on the Displacement of Osteogenic Bone Particles during Placement of Titanium Screw-Type Implants. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Online publication date: 1-Sep-2009. CrossRef Elke Slaets, Ignace Naert, Geert Carmeliet, Joke Duyck. (2009) Early cortical bone healing around loaded titanium implants: a histological study in the rabbit. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20:2, 126-134 Online publication date: 1-Feb-2009. CrossRef
|
|
|