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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2015-08, Vol.17 (4), p.639-645
Hauptverfasser: Vivan Cardoso, Marcio, Vandamme, Katleen, Chaudhari, Amol, De Rycker, Judith, Van Meerbeek, Bart, Naert, Ignace, Duyck, Joke
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
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