Dental Implant Macro-Design Features Can Impact the Dynamics of Osseointegration
Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of two dental implant types possessing a different macro‐design in the in vivo pig model. Materials and Methods Titanium AadvaTM implants (GC, Tokyo, Japan) were compared with OsseoSpeedTM implants (Astra, Mölndal, Sweden), wi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2015-08, Vol.17 (4), p.639-645 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of two dental implant types possessing a different macro‐design in the in vivo pig model.
Materials and Methods
Titanium AadvaTM implants (GC, Tokyo, Japan) were compared with OsseoSpeedTM implants (Astra, Mölndal, Sweden), with the Aadva implant displaying significant larger inter‐thread dimensions than the OsseoSpeed implant. Implants were installed in the parietal bone of 12 domestic pigs and left for healing for either 1 or 3 months. Implant osseointegration was evaluated by quantitative histology (bone volume relative to the tissue volume [BV/TV]; bone‐to‐implant contact [BIC]) for distinct implant regions (collar, body, total implant length) with specific implant thread features. The Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney nonparametric test with α = 0.05 was performed.
Results
An inferior amount of bone enveloping the Aadva implant compared with the OsseoSpeed implant was observed, in particular at the implant body part with its considerable inter‐thread gaps (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1523-0899 1708-8208 |
DOI: | 10.1111/cid.12178 |