Evaluation of nano-technology-modified zirconia oral implants: a study in rabbits

Objective: The objective of this study was to screen candidate nano‐technology‐modified, micro‐structured zirconia implant surfaces relative to local bone formation and osseointegration. Materials and Methods: Proprietary nano‐technology surface‐modified (calcium phosphate: CaP) micro‐structured zir...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical periodontology 2009-07, Vol.36 (7), p.610-617
Hauptverfasser: Lee, Jaebum, Sieweke, Janet H., Rodriguez, Nancy A., Schüpbach, Peter, Lindström, Håkan, Susin, Cristiano, Wikesjö, Ulf M. E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective: The objective of this study was to screen candidate nano‐technology‐modified, micro‐structured zirconia implant surfaces relative to local bone formation and osseointegration. Materials and Methods: Proprietary nano‐technology surface‐modified (calcium phosphate: CaP) micro‐structured zirconia implants (A and C), control micro‐structured zirconia implants (ZiUnite™), and titanium porous oxide implants (TiUnite™) were implanted into the femoral condyle in 40 adult male New Zealand White rabbits. Each animal received one implant in each hind leg; thus, 20 animals received A and C implants and 20 animals received ZiUnite™ and TiUnite™ implants in contralateral hind legs. Ten animals/group were euthanized at weeks 3 and 6 when biopsies of the implant sites were processed for histometric analysis using digital photomicrographs produced using backscatter scanning electron microscopy. Results: The TiUnite™ surface demonstrated significantly greater bone–implant contact (BIC) (77.6±2.6%) compared with the A (64.6±3.6%) and C (62.2±3.1%) surfaces at 3 weeks (p0.05). Similarly, there were non‐significant differences between the TiUnite™ and the ZiUnite™ surfaces (p>0.05). At 6 weeks, there were no significant differences in BIC between the TiUnite™ (67.1±4.2%), ZiUnite™ (69.7±5.7%), A (68.6±1.9%), and C (64.5±4.1%) surfaces (p>0.05). Conclusion: TiUnite™ and ZiUnite™ implant surfaces exhibit high levels of osseointegration that, in this model, confirm their advanced osteoconductive properties. Addition of CaP nano‐technology to the ZiUnite™ surface does not enhance the already advanced osteoconductivity displayed by the TiUnite™ and ZiUnite™ implant surfaces.
ISSN:0303-6979
1600-051X
DOI:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01423.x