The drilling technique and the surface characteristics are known to influence the healing times of oral implants. The influence of osteotomy dimension on osseointegration of microroughned implant surfaces treated with resorbable blasting media was tested in an in vivo model.
Ninety-six implants (ø4.5 mm, 8 mm in length) with resorbable blasting media-treated surfaces were placed in the ileum of six sheep. The final osteotomy diameters were 4.6 mm (reamer), 4.1 mm (loose), 3.7 mm (medium), and 3.2 mm (tight). After three and six weeks of healing, the implants were biomechanically tested and histologically evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using Page L trend test for ordered and paired sample and linear regression, with significance level at p < 0.05.
An overall increase in all dependent variables was observed with the reduction of osteotomy diameter. In addition, all osseointegration scores increased over time. At three weeks, the retention was significantly higher for smaller osteotomies. The histological sections depicted intimate contact of bone with all the implant surfaces and osteoblast lines were visible in all sections.
The resorbable blasting media microroughed surfaces achieved successful osseointegration for all the instrumentation procedures tested, with higher osseointegration scores for the high insertion torque group.
AlbrektssonTBranemarkPIHanssonHA. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand1981; 52: 155–170.
2.
Le GuehennecLSoueidanALayrolleP. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater: Off Publ Acad Dent Mater2007; 23: 844–854.
3.
WennerbergAAlbrektssonT. On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2010; 25: 63–74.
MustafaKWennerbergAWroblewskiJ. 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 Implants Res2001; 12: 515–525.
6.
SammonsRLLumbikanondaNGrossM. Comparison of osteoblast spreading on microstructured dental implant surfaces and cell behaviour in an explant model of osseointegration. A scanning electron microscopic study. Clin Oral Implants Res2005; 16: 657–666.
7.
ZhaoGZingerOSchwartzZ. Osteoblastlike cells are sensitive to submicron-scale surface structure. Clin Oral Implants Res2006; 17: 258–264.
8.
GotfredsenKWennerbergAJohanssonC. Anchorage of TiO2-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res1995; 29: 1223–1231.
9.
PiattelliMScaranoAPaolantonioM. Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol2002; 28: 2–8.
10.
NovaesABJrSouzaSLde OliveiraPT. Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2002; 17: 377–383.
11.
LazzaraRJTestoriTTrisiP. A human histologic analysis of osseotite and machined surfaces using implants with 2 opposing surfaces. Int J Periodont Rest Dent1999; 19: 117–129.
12.
SulYTJohanssonCWennerbergA. Optimum surface properties of oxidized implants for reinforcement of osseointegration: surface chemistry, oxide thickness, porosity, roughness, and crystal structure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2005; 20: 349–359.
13.
SulYTKwonDHKangBS. Experimental evidence for interfacial biochemical bonding in osseointegrated titanium implants. Clin Oral Implants Res2013; 24: 8–19.
14.
FiniMCigadaARondelliG. In vitro and in vivo behaviour of Ca- and P-enriched anodized titanium. Biomaterials1999; 20: 1587–1594.
15.
Franco RdeLChiesaRBelotiMM. Human osteoblastic cell response to a Ca- and P-enriched titanium surface obtained by anodization. J Biomed Mater Res Part A2009; 88: 841–848.
16.
Cecchinato F, Xue Y, Karlsson J, et al. In vitro evaluation of human fetal osteoblast response to magnesium loaded mesoporous TiO coating. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. Epub ahead of printing 2013.
17.
CoelhoPGLemonsJE. Physico/chemical characterization and in vivo evaluation of nanothickness bioceramic depositions on alumina-blasted/acid-etched Ti-6Al-4V implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res Part A2009; 90: 351–361.
18.
BonfanteEAMarinCGranatoR. Histologic and biomechanical evaluation of alumina-blasted/acid-etched and resorbable blasting media surfaces. J Oral Implantol2012; 38: 549–557.
19.
MarinCGranatoRSuzukiM. Biomechanical and histomorphometric analysis of etched and non-etched resorbable blasting media processed implant surfaces: an experimental study in dogs. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2010; 3: 382–391.
20.
MarinCGranatoRSuzukiM. Removal torque and histomorphometric evaluation of bioceramic grit-blasted/acid-etched and dual acid-etched implant surfaces: an experimental study in dogs. J Periodontol2008; 79: 1942–1949.
21.
CoelhoPGSuzukiMGuimaraesMV. Early bone healing around different implant bulk designs and surgical techniques: a study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2010; 12: 202–208.
22.
OngJLCarnesDLBesshoK. Evaluation of titanium plasma-sprayed and plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite implants in vivo. Biomaterials2004; 25: 4601–4606.
23.
YangYDennisonDOngJL. Protein adsorption and osteoblast precursor cell attachment to hydroxyapatite of different crystallinities. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2005; 20: 187–192.
24.
CoelhoPGMarinCGranatoR. Biomechanical and histologic evaluation of non-washed resorbable blasting media and aluminablasted/acid-etched surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res2012; 23: 132–135.
25.
MarinCGranatoRBonfanteEA. Evaluation of a nanometer roughness scale resorbable media-processed surface: a study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res2012; 23: 119–124.
26.
Halldin A, Jimbo R, Johansson CB, et al. Implant stability and bone remodeling after 3 and 13 days of implantation with an initial static strain. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 16: 383–393.
27.
HalldinAJimboRJohanssonCB. The effect of static bone strain on implant stability and bone remodeling. Bone2011; 49: 783–789.
28.
TabassumAMeijerGJWolkeJG. Influence of surgical technique and surface roughness on the primary stability of an implant in artificial bone with different cortical thickness: a laboratory study. Clin Oral Implants Res2010; 21: 213–220.
29.
DonathK. Preparation of histologica sections by the cutting-grinding technique for hard tissue and other material not suitable to be sectioned by routine methods. EXAKT-Kulzer, Norderstedt1993; 1: 16–16.
30.
WitekLMarinCGranatoR. Surface characterization, biomechanical, and histologic evaluation of alumina and bioactive resorbable blasting textured surfaces in titanium implant healing chambers: an experimental study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2013; 28: 694–700.
31.
BerglundhTAbrahamssonILangNP. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res2003; 14: 251–262.
32.
FreitasACJrBonfanteEAGiroG. The effect of implant design on insertion torque and immediate micromotion. Clin Oral Implants Res2012; 23: 113–118.
33.
NortonM. Primary stability versus viable constraint—a need to redefine. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2013; 28: 19–21.
34.
JimboRGiroGMarinC. Simplified drilling technique does not decrease dental implant osseointegration: a preliminary report. J Periodontol2013; 84: 1599–1605.
35.
Jimbo R, Tovar N, Yoo DY, et al. The effect of different surgical drilling procedures on full laser-etched microgrooves surface-treated implants: an experimental study in sheep. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 25: 1072–1077.
