Radiographic evaluation of dental implants with different surface treatments: an experimental study in dogs

The aim of the study was to radiographically measure the bone density at the peri-implant region after osseointegration and to compare the relative bone density achieved by different surface-treated implants. Four different types of implant surfaces were compared, using five young-adult male mongrel...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Implant dentistry 2003, Vol.12 (3), p.252-258
Hauptverfasser: Taba Júnior, Mário, Novaes, Jr, Arthur B, Souza, Sérgio L, Grisi, Márcio F, Palioto, Daniela B, Pardini, Luiz C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 258
container_issue 3
container_start_page 252
container_title Implant dentistry
container_volume 12
creator Taba Júnior, Mário
Novaes, Jr, Arthur B
Souza, Sérgio L
Grisi, Márcio F
Palioto, Daniela B
Pardini, Luiz C
description The aim of the study was to radiographically measure the bone density at the peri-implant region after osseointegration and to compare the relative bone density achieved by different surface-treated implants. Four different types of implant surfaces were compared, using five young-adult male mongrel dogs. The first, second, third, and fourth lower premolars were extracted. Ninety days after removal, four 3.75-mm diameter and 10-mm long screw implants (Paragon) were placed with different surface treatments in the lower hemiarches. The dogs received two implants each of the following surface treatments: 1) smooth (machined); 2) titanium plasma spray: 3) hydroxyapatite coating; and 4) sandblasting with soluble particles. The implants were maintained unloaded for 90 days. After this period, the animals were killed and the hemimandibles were extracted and radiographed. The grey level of the bone adjacent to implants was measured with a specific software tool (line histogram) and the relative bone density was calculated. The four different surface treatments promote different numeric levels of bone density around the dental implants (sandblasting with soluble particles, 52.45 +/- 2.95; titanium plasma spray, 53.98 +/- 3.67; machined, 55.78 +/- 3.06, and hydroxyapatite coating, 58.2 +/- 2.71). Therefore, the implants can be ranked in terms of relative bone density from high to low as follows: sandblasting with soluble particles, titanium plasma spray, machined, and hydroxyapatite coating. There were no statistically significant differences in bone density among the four groups (P = 0.1130, analysis of variance). Surface treatments that add roughness to the implant show numerically higher bone density when compared with machined surfaces. The findings of radiographic density analysis suggest that the soluble blasting media-treated surface provides a greater bone density at the peri-implant region.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/01.ID.0000075580.55380.E5
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71278392</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71278392</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2795-8cd706a83d05e45abc4bb021f1eac9aabbac7fde0599202dfce7a44cd07bb0233</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFUNtOwzAMzQMIxuAXUHjhbSNpm6blDY0Bk5CQEDxHbuKwQG8kLZe_J2OTZku2ZJ_jyyHkgrM5Z6W8Yny-up2zjUkhCjYXIo1xKQ7IhDORz3Kep8fkJIR3xpLoxRE55pnIWVbkE_LxDMZ1bx76tdMUv6AeYXBdSztLDbYD1NQ1fQ3tEOi3G9bUOGvRxw4No7egkQ4eYWhiJVxTaCn-9Ohds-WGYTS_1LXUdG_hlBxaqAOe7fKUvN4tXxYPs8en-9Xi5nGmE1mKWaGNZDkUqWECMwGVzqqKJdxyBF0CVBVoaQ0yUZbxIWM1SsgybZjc4NJ0Si63c3vffY4YBtW4oLGOX2A3BiV5Iou0TCKw3AK170LwaFUfLwf_qzhTG3UV42p1q_bqqn911VJE7vluyVg1aPbMnbTpH4pge1w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71278392</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Radiographic evaluation of dental implants with different surface treatments: an experimental study in dogs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload</source><creator>Taba Júnior, Mário ; Novaes, Jr, Arthur B ; Souza, Sérgio L ; Grisi, Márcio F ; Palioto, Daniela B ; Pardini, Luiz C</creator><creatorcontrib>Taba Júnior, Mário ; Novaes, Jr, Arthur B ; Souza, Sérgio L ; Grisi, Márcio F ; Palioto, Daniela B ; Pardini, Luiz C</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of the study was to radiographically measure the bone density at the peri-implant region after osseointegration and to compare the relative bone density achieved by different surface-treated implants. Four different types of implant surfaces were compared, using five young-adult male mongrel dogs. The first, second, third, and fourth lower premolars were extracted. Ninety days after removal, four 3.75-mm diameter and 10-mm long screw implants (Paragon) were placed with different surface treatments in the lower hemiarches. The dogs received two implants each of the following surface treatments: 1) smooth (machined); 2) titanium plasma spray: 3) hydroxyapatite coating; and 4) sandblasting with soluble particles. The implants were maintained unloaded for 90 days. After this period, the animals were killed and the hemimandibles were extracted and radiographed. The grey level of the bone adjacent to implants was measured with a specific software tool (line histogram) and the relative bone density was calculated. The four different surface treatments promote different numeric levels of bone density around the dental implants (sandblasting with soluble particles, 52.45 +/- 2.95; titanium plasma spray, 53.98 +/- 3.67; machined, 55.78 +/- 3.06, and hydroxyapatite coating, 58.2 +/- 2.71). Therefore, the implants can be ranked in terms of relative bone density from high to low as follows: sandblasting with soluble particles, titanium plasma spray, machined, and hydroxyapatite coating. There were no statistically significant differences in bone density among the four groups (P = 0.1130, analysis of variance). Surface treatments that add roughness to the implant show numerically higher bone density when compared with machined surfaces. The findings of radiographic density analysis suggest that the soluble blasting media-treated surface provides a greater bone density at the peri-implant region.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1056-6163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/01.ID.0000075580.55380.E5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14560486</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biocompatible Materials - chemistry ; Bone Density - physiology ; Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry ; Dental Etching ; Dental Implants ; Dental Prosthesis Design ; Dentistry ; Dogs ; Durapatite - chemistry ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Male ; Mandible - diagnostic imaging ; Mandible - surgery ; Osseointegration - physiology ; Radiography ; Silicon Dioxide - chemistry ; Surface Properties ; Titanium - chemistry</subject><ispartof>Implant dentistry, 2003, Vol.12 (3), p.252-258</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2795-8cd706a83d05e45abc4bb021f1eac9aabbac7fde0599202dfce7a44cd07bb0233</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2795-8cd706a83d05e45abc4bb021f1eac9aabbac7fde0599202dfce7a44cd07bb0233</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,4012,27910,27911,27912</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14560486$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Taba Júnior, Mário</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novaes, Jr, Arthur B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Souza, Sérgio L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grisi, Márcio F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palioto, Daniela B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pardini, Luiz C</creatorcontrib><title>Radiographic evaluation of dental implants with different surface treatments: an experimental study in dogs</title><title>Implant dentistry</title><addtitle>Implant Dent</addtitle><description>The aim of the study was to radiographically measure the bone density at the peri-implant region after osseointegration and to compare the relative bone density achieved by different surface-treated implants. Four different types of implant surfaces were compared, using five young-adult male mongrel dogs. The first, second, third, and fourth lower premolars were extracted. Ninety days after removal, four 3.75-mm diameter and 10-mm long screw implants (Paragon) were placed with different surface treatments in the lower hemiarches. The dogs received two implants each of the following surface treatments: 1) smooth (machined); 2) titanium plasma spray: 3) hydroxyapatite coating; and 4) sandblasting with soluble particles. The implants were maintained unloaded for 90 days. After this period, the animals were killed and the hemimandibles were extracted and radiographed. The grey level of the bone adjacent to implants was measured with a specific software tool (line histogram) and the relative bone density was calculated. The four different surface treatments promote different numeric levels of bone density around the dental implants (sandblasting with soluble particles, 52.45 +/- 2.95; titanium plasma spray, 53.98 +/- 3.67; machined, 55.78 +/- 3.06, and hydroxyapatite coating, 58.2 +/- 2.71). Therefore, the implants can be ranked in terms of relative bone density from high to low as follows: sandblasting with soluble particles, titanium plasma spray, machined, and hydroxyapatite coating. There were no statistically significant differences in bone density among the four groups (P = 0.1130, analysis of variance). Surface treatments that add roughness to the implant show numerically higher bone density when compared with machined surfaces. The findings of radiographic density analysis suggest that the soluble blasting media-treated surface provides a greater bone density at the peri-implant region.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biocompatible Materials - chemistry</subject><subject>Bone Density - physiology</subject><subject>Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry</subject><subject>Dental Etching</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Durapatite - chemistry</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mandible - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Mandible - surgery</subject><subject>Osseointegration - physiology</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Silicon Dioxide - chemistry</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><subject>Titanium - chemistry</subject><issn>1056-6163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFUNtOwzAMzQMIxuAXUHjhbSNpm6blDY0Bk5CQEDxHbuKwQG8kLZe_J2OTZku2ZJ_jyyHkgrM5Z6W8Yny-up2zjUkhCjYXIo1xKQ7IhDORz3Kep8fkJIR3xpLoxRE55pnIWVbkE_LxDMZ1bx76tdMUv6AeYXBdSztLDbYD1NQ1fQ3tEOi3G9bUOGvRxw4No7egkQ4eYWhiJVxTaCn-9Ohds-WGYTS_1LXUdG_hlBxaqAOe7fKUvN4tXxYPs8en-9Xi5nGmE1mKWaGNZDkUqWECMwGVzqqKJdxyBF0CVBVoaQ0yUZbxIWM1SsgybZjc4NJ0Si63c3vffY4YBtW4oLGOX2A3BiV5Iou0TCKw3AK170LwaFUfLwf_qzhTG3UV42p1q_bqqn911VJE7vluyVg1aPbMnbTpH4pge1w</recordid><startdate>2003</startdate><enddate>2003</enddate><creator>Taba Júnior, Mário</creator><creator>Novaes, Jr, Arthur B</creator><creator>Souza, Sérgio L</creator><creator>Grisi, Márcio F</creator><creator>Palioto, Daniela B</creator><creator>Pardini, Luiz C</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2003</creationdate><title>Radiographic evaluation of dental implants with different surface treatments: an experimental study in dogs</title><author>Taba Júnior, Mário ; Novaes, Jr, Arthur B ; Souza, Sérgio L ; Grisi, Márcio F ; Palioto, Daniela B ; Pardini, Luiz C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2795-8cd706a83d05e45abc4bb021f1eac9aabbac7fde0599202dfce7a44cd07bb0233</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biocompatible Materials - chemistry</topic><topic>Bone Density - physiology</topic><topic>Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry</topic><topic>Dental Etching</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Durapatite - chemistry</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mandible - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Mandible - surgery</topic><topic>Osseointegration - physiology</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Silicon Dioxide - chemistry</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><topic>Titanium - chemistry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Taba Júnior, Mário</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novaes, Jr, Arthur B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Souza, Sérgio L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grisi, Márcio F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palioto, Daniela B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pardini, Luiz C</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Implant dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Taba Júnior, Mário</au><au>Novaes, Jr, Arthur B</au><au>Souza, Sérgio L</au><au>Grisi, Márcio F</au><au>Palioto, Daniela B</au><au>Pardini, Luiz C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Radiographic evaluation of dental implants with different surface treatments: an experimental study in dogs</atitle><jtitle>Implant dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>Implant Dent</addtitle><date>2003</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>252</spage><epage>258</epage><pages>252-258</pages><issn>1056-6163</issn><abstract>The aim of the study was to radiographically measure the bone density at the peri-implant region after osseointegration and to compare the relative bone density achieved by different surface-treated implants. Four different types of implant surfaces were compared, using five young-adult male mongrel dogs. The first, second, third, and fourth lower premolars were extracted. Ninety days after removal, four 3.75-mm diameter and 10-mm long screw implants (Paragon) were placed with different surface treatments in the lower hemiarches. The dogs received two implants each of the following surface treatments: 1) smooth (machined); 2) titanium plasma spray: 3) hydroxyapatite coating; and 4) sandblasting with soluble particles. The implants were maintained unloaded for 90 days. After this period, the animals were killed and the hemimandibles were extracted and radiographed. The grey level of the bone adjacent to implants was measured with a specific software tool (line histogram) and the relative bone density was calculated. The four different surface treatments promote different numeric levels of bone density around the dental implants (sandblasting with soluble particles, 52.45 +/- 2.95; titanium plasma spray, 53.98 +/- 3.67; machined, 55.78 +/- 3.06, and hydroxyapatite coating, 58.2 +/- 2.71). Therefore, the implants can be ranked in terms of relative bone density from high to low as follows: sandblasting with soluble particles, titanium plasma spray, machined, and hydroxyapatite coating. There were no statistically significant differences in bone density among the four groups (P = 0.1130, analysis of variance). Surface treatments that add roughness to the implant show numerically higher bone density when compared with machined surfaces. The findings of radiographic density analysis suggest that the soluble blasting media-treated surface provides a greater bone density at the peri-implant region.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>14560486</pmid><doi>10.1097/01.ID.0000075580.55380.E5</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1056-6163
ispartof Implant dentistry, 2003, Vol.12 (3), p.252-258
issn 1056-6163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71278392
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload
subjects Animals
Biocompatible Materials - chemistry
Bone Density - physiology
Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry
Dental Etching
Dental Implants
Dental Prosthesis Design
Dentistry
Dogs
Durapatite - chemistry
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
Male
Mandible - diagnostic imaging
Mandible - surgery
Osseointegration - physiology
Radiography
Silicon Dioxide - chemistry
Surface Properties
Titanium - chemistry
title Radiographic evaluation of dental implants with different surface treatments: an experimental study in dogs
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T11%3A24%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Radiographic%20evaluation%20of%20dental%20implants%20with%20different%20surface%20treatments:%20an%20experimental%20study%20in%20dogs&rft.jtitle=Implant%20dentistry&rft.au=Taba%20J%C3%BAnior,%20M%C3%A1rio&rft.date=2003&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=252&rft.epage=258&rft.pages=252-258&rft.issn=1056-6163&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/01.ID.0000075580.55380.E5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71278392%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71278392&rft_id=info:pmid/14560486&rfr_iscdi=true