Biomechanical Evaluation of Endosseous Implants at Early Implantation Times: A Study in Dogs

Purpose This study tested the null hypothesis that differences in surgical instrumentation, macrogeometry, and surface treatment imposed by different implant systems do not affect early biomechanical fixation in a canine mandible model. Materials and Methods The lower premolars of 6 beagle dogs were extracted and the ridges allowed to heal for 8 weeks. Thirty-six (n = 12 each group) implants were bilaterally placed, remaining for 1 and 3 weeks in vivo. The implant groups were as follows: group 1, Ti-6Al-4V with a dual acid-etched surface with nanometer scale discrete crystalline deposition (Nanotite; Certain Biomet-3i, West Palm Springs, FL); group 2, Ti-6Al-4V with a titanium oxide-blasted fluoride-modified surface chemistry (Osseospeed 4.0 S; Astra Tech, Mölndal, Sweden); group 3: Ti-6Al-4V with a bioceramic microblasted surface (Ossean; Intra-Lock International, Boca Raton, FL). Following euthanasia, implants were torqued to interface failure and histologically evaluated. General linear modeling (ANOVA) at 95% level of significance was performed. Results Histology showed that interfacial bone remodeling and initial woven bone formation were observed around all implant groups at 1 and 3 weeks. Torque values were significantly affected by time in vivo, implant group, and their interaction ( P = .016, P < .001, and P = .001, respectively). Regarding torque values, group 3, group 2, and group 1 ranked highest, intermediate, and lowest, respectively. Conclusion Early biomechanical fixation at 1 and 3 weeks was affected by surgical instrumentation, macrogeometry, and surface treatment present for one of the implant systems tested. The null hypothesis was rejected.