COMPARISON OF BONE HEALING AROUND NANO TOPOGRAPHY DENTAL IMPLANT VERSUS CONVENTIONAL IMPLANT

Amer, Ali H.; Osman, Saeeda M.; Foad, Lydia N.

doi:10.21608/adjalexu.2017.57920

COMPARISON OF BONE HEALING AROUND NANO TOPOGRAPHY DENTAL IMPLANT VERSUS CONVENTIONAL IMPLANT

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Bachelor of Dentistry,Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

² Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

³ Assistant Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

10.21608/adjalexu.2017.57920

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Implant surface characteristics differ greatly among various Implants. Early bone healing around the implant surface can be crucial in determining various treatment plans and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: Comparison of early bone healing between two commercially available implants one with a nanotopographical surface and one with a conventionally treated surface in the maxillary anterior region of the oral cavity using cone beam CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients were selected from Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University where patients were indicated for bilateral maxillary anterior implants as delayed Implantation with a total of 14 implants divided into two groups: Study group: Seven implants with a nanotopographic surface. Control group: Seven implants with a conventional surface. Bone density was measured according to gray scale using CBCT and dedicated software pre-operatively and at four and six weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: For control group implants the average mean and standard deviation of bone density of the placed implants at four weeks postoperatively was 1010.02 ± 142.59 Hounsfield units and 1104.4 ± 152.9 HU at six weeks post-operatively. While for study group implants the average mean and standard deviation of bone density of the placed implants at four weeks post-operatively was 1208.04 ± 145.82 HU and 1328.85 ± 160.41 HU at six weeks post-operatively. After comparing these results, it was shown that the average mean and standard deviation of bone density of all implants of the study group is greater than the average mean and standard deviation of bone density of all implants of the control group, which results in p-value of

Keywords

Main Subjects

Oral and maxillofacial surgery

References

1. Brånemark PI. Vital microscopy of bone marrow in rabbit. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1959;11 (38):1-82. Quoted from: Uezono M, Takakuda K, Kikuchi M, Suzuki S, Moriyama K. Hydroxyapatite/collagen nanocomposite coated titanium rod for achieving rapid osseointegration onto bone surface. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013; 101:1031-8.

2. Brånemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental studies. J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 50:399-410.

3. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990; 5:347-59.

4. Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1977; 16: 1-132. Quoted from: Chen ST, Buser D. Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla—a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 186-215.

5. Baier RE, Meyer AE. Implant surface preparation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988;3:9-20

6. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B, Krol JJ. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screwshaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995; 6:24-30.

7. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B. Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11:38-45.

8. Sul YT, Byon ES, Jeong Y. Biomechanical measurements of calcium-incorporated oxidized implants in rabbitbone: effect of calcium surface chemistry of a novel implant. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004; 6:101-10.

9. Sul YT, Johansson C, Wennerberg A, Cho LR, Chang BS, Albrektsson T. Optimum surface properties of oxidized implants for reinforcement of osseointegration: surface chemistry, oxide thickness, porosity, roughness, and crystal structure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20:349-59.

10. Sul YT, Jönsson J, Yoon GS, Johansson C. Resonance frequency measurements in vivo and related surface properties of magnesium-incorporated, micropatterned and magnesium incorporated TiUnite, Osseotite, SLA and TiOblast implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20:114655.

11. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Röser K, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Oxidized implants and their influence on the bone response. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001; 12:1025-31.

12. Ferreira L, Karp JM, Nobre L, Langer R. New opportunities: the use of nanotechnologies to manipulate and track stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2008; 3:136-46.

13. Webster TJ, Ejiofor JU. Increased osteoblast adhesion on nanophase metals: Ti, Ti6Al4V, and CoCrMo. Biomaterials. 2004; 25:4731-9.

14. Dohan DM, Coelho PG, Kang BS, Sul YT, Albrektsson T. Classifiation of osseointegrated implant surfaces: materials, chemistry and topography. Trends Biotechnol. 2010; 28:198-206.

15. Jimbo R, Sotres J, Johansson C, Breding K, Currie F, Wennerberg A. The biological response to three different nanostructures applied on smooth implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:706-12.

16. Bjursten LM, Rasmusson L, Oh S, Smith GC, Brammer KS, Jin S. Titanium dioxide nanotubes enhance bone bonding in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010; 92:1218-24.

17. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001; 8:1153-7.

18. Karthik K, Sivakumar, Sivaraj, Thangaswamy V. Evaluation of implant success: A review of past and present concepts. J Pharm Bioall Sci. 2013; 5(S1): 117-9.

19. Boonstra AM, SchiphorstPreuper HR, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008; 31:165-9.

20. Kotz S, Balakrishnan N, Read CB, Vidakovic B.

Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Hoboken, N.J.: WileyInterscience. Vol. 2, 2nd ed. 2006: 981–89. 21. Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC. A simple guide to IBM SPSS statistics for version 20.0. Student ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2013.

22. Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990;5:347-59.

23. Bowers KT, Keller JC, Randolph BA, Wick DG, Michaels CM. Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992; 7:302-10.

24. Martin JY, Schwartz Z, Hummert TW, Schraub DM, Simpson J, Lankford J Jr, et al. Effect of titanium surface roughness on proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63). J Biomed Mater Res. 1995; 29:389-401.

25. Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with sandblasted and acid-etched surface: A histometric study in the canine mandible. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998; 40:1-11.

26. Bornstein MM, Cionca N, Mombelli A. Systemic conditions and treatments as risks for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24: 12-27.

27. Gómez-de Diego R, Mang-de la Rosa Mdel R, Romero-Pérez MJ, Cutando-Soriano A, López-Valverde-Centeno A. Indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014; 19: e483-9.

28. Duyck J, Naert I. Failure of oral implants: aetiology, symptoms and influencing factors. Clin Oral Investig. 1998; 2: 102-14.

29. Al-Khabbaz AK, Griffin TJ, Al-Shammari KF. Assessment of pain associated with the surgical placement of dental implants. J Periodontol. 2007; 78:239-46.

30. Strbac GD, Unger E, Donner R, Bijak M, Watzek G, Zechner W. Thermal effects of a combined irrigation method during implant site drilling. A standardized in vitro study using a bovine rib model. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 665-74.

31. Porter JA, Von Fraunhofer JA. Success or failure of dental implants? A literature review with treatment considerations. Gen Dent. 2005; 53:423-32.

32. Salvi GE, Lang NP. Diagnostic parameters for monitoring peri-implant conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:116-27.

33. Katranji A, Misch K, Wang HL. Cortical bone thickness in dentate and edentulous human cadavers. J Periodontol 2007; 78: 874-8.

34. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect in treatment planning, surgical approach, and healing. In: Misch CE, editor. Contemporary implant dentistry. St Louis: Mosby; 1993 :469-85.

35. Meirelles L, Currie F, Jacobsson M, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. The effect of chemical and nanotopographical modifications on the early stages of osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23:641-7.

36. Kim SJ, Kim MR, Rim JS, Chung SM, Shin SW. Comparison of implant stability after different implant surface treatments in dog bone. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18: 415-20.
37. Ballo A, Agheli H, Lausmaa J, Thomsen P, Petronis S. Nanostructured model implants for in vivo studies: influence of well-defined nanotopography on de novo bone formation on titanium implants. Int J Nanomedicine. 2011; 6:3415-28.

38. Nandal S, Ghalaut P, Shekhawat H. A radiological evaluation of marginal bone around dental implants. An invivo study. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 5:126-37.

39. O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Measurements comparing the initial stability of five designs of dental implants: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2000; 2: 85-92.