Alumina and zirconia coated vitallium oral endosteal implants in beagles
The purpose of this study was to assess the addition of a ceramic coating upon a Vitallium implant to increase the implant's biologic acceptability in the oral environment. The mandibular premolar teeth in 9 adult beagle dogs were removed bilaterally and these areas allowed to heal for 6 weeks....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of biomedical materials research 1975-07, Vol.9 (4), p.257-262 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 262 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 257 |
container_title | Journal of biomedical materials research |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Cranin, A. Norman Schnitman, Paul A. Rabkin, Michael Dennison, Thomas Onesto, E. J. |
description | The purpose of this study was to assess the addition of a ceramic coating upon a Vitallium implant to increase the implant's biologic acceptability in the oral environment. The mandibular premolar teeth in 9 adult beagle dogs were removed bilaterally and these areas allowed to heal for 6 weeks. Ceramic coating with either Al2O3 or ZrO2 was carried out by flame spray deposition upon Vitallium anchor implants (9 of each), and the implants placed into the 18 healed premolar areas. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was conducted by 2 independent investigators over a 32 week period. Implants which exhibited mobility greater than II on a scale of 0 to III, at intervals of one‐half, were judged unsatisfactory. After 19 weeks, all 9 Al2O3 coated implants and 5 ZrO2 coated implants were rated unsatisfactory. After 32 weeks, 4 ZrO3 coated implants were in situ with 0 or I mobility. Radiographically the width of the peri‐implant space increased in direct proportion to both time and mobility. Histologic sections demonstrated encapsulating dense fibrous connective tissue which was oriented parallel to both ZrO2 and Al2O3 implants. Results suggest the zirconia used is a superior ceramic coating to the alumina. Neither seemed to increase biologic acceptability over uncoated Vitallium implants. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jbm.820090429 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_83022844</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>83022844</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4409-63ec3db65b23a65720e18da6a9e9cf715441f5e5a8dffb1c7c3a1a6bb19cf6873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kDlPxDAQRi0EgmWhpERKRRewY8dOSkDsciyHxNlZE8dBBidZ7ITr12OUFVBRzUjfm0-jh9AWwbsE42Tvqah3swTjHLMkX0IjgnMRM075MhqFnMQ5xWwNrXv_hAOVU7KKVgkRPMXZCB3v2742DUTQlNGncaptDESqhU6X0avpwFrT11HrwEa6KVvf6bCZem6h6XxkmqjQ8Gi130ArFVivNxdzjG4nRzeHx_HscnpyuD-LFWM4jznVipYFT4uEAk9FgjXJSuCQ61xVgqSMkSrVKWRlVRVECUWBAC8KEmKeCTpGO0Pv3LUvvfadrI1X2oZ_dNt7mVGcJBljAYwHULnWe6crOXemBvchCZbf5mQwJ3_MBX57UdwXtS5_6UFVyMWQvxmrP_4vk6cH53-bF5-YYO_95xLcs-SCilTeX0wlu8YPd1eTM3lGvwA_04lj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>83022844</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Alumina and zirconia coated vitallium oral endosteal implants in beagles</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Cranin, A. Norman ; Schnitman, Paul A. ; Rabkin, Michael ; Dennison, Thomas ; Onesto, E. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cranin, A. Norman ; Schnitman, Paul A. ; Rabkin, Michael ; Dennison, Thomas ; Onesto, E. J.</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to assess the addition of a ceramic coating upon a Vitallium implant to increase the implant's biologic acceptability in the oral environment. The mandibular premolar teeth in 9 adult beagle dogs were removed bilaterally and these areas allowed to heal for 6 weeks. Ceramic coating with either Al2O3 or ZrO2 was carried out by flame spray deposition upon Vitallium anchor implants (9 of each), and the implants placed into the 18 healed premolar areas. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was conducted by 2 independent investigators over a 32 week period. Implants which exhibited mobility greater than II on a scale of 0 to III, at intervals of one‐half, were judged unsatisfactory. After 19 weeks, all 9 Al2O3 coated implants and 5 ZrO2 coated implants were rated unsatisfactory. After 32 weeks, 4 ZrO3 coated implants were in situ with 0 or I mobility. Radiographically the width of the peri‐implant space increased in direct proportion to both time and mobility. Histologic sections demonstrated encapsulating dense fibrous connective tissue which was oriented parallel to both ZrO2 and Al2O3 implants. Results suggest the zirconia used is a superior ceramic coating to the alumina. Neither seemed to increase biologic acceptability over uncoated Vitallium implants.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9304</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-4636</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820090429</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1176508</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Aluminum - pharmacology ; Animals ; Biocompatible Materials - pharmacology ; Chromium Alloys ; Dental Implantation - instrumentation ; Dogs ; Gingiva - anatomy & histology ; Gingiva - drug effects ; Tooth Mobility - etiology ; Vitallium - pharmacology ; Zirconium - pharmacology</subject><ispartof>Journal of biomedical materials research, 1975-07, Vol.9 (4), p.257-262</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1975 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4409-63ec3db65b23a65720e18da6a9e9cf715441f5e5a8dffb1c7c3a1a6bb19cf6873</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4409-63ec3db65b23a65720e18da6a9e9cf715441f5e5a8dffb1c7c3a1a6bb19cf6873</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjbm.820090429$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjbm.820090429$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1176508$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cranin, A. Norman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schnitman, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabkin, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dennison, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onesto, E. J.</creatorcontrib><title>Alumina and zirconia coated vitallium oral endosteal implants in beagles</title><title>Journal of biomedical materials research</title><addtitle>J. Biomed. Mater. Res</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study was to assess the addition of a ceramic coating upon a Vitallium implant to increase the implant's biologic acceptability in the oral environment. The mandibular premolar teeth in 9 adult beagle dogs were removed bilaterally and these areas allowed to heal for 6 weeks. Ceramic coating with either Al2O3 or ZrO2 was carried out by flame spray deposition upon Vitallium anchor implants (9 of each), and the implants placed into the 18 healed premolar areas. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was conducted by 2 independent investigators over a 32 week period. Implants which exhibited mobility greater than II on a scale of 0 to III, at intervals of one‐half, were judged unsatisfactory. After 19 weeks, all 9 Al2O3 coated implants and 5 ZrO2 coated implants were rated unsatisfactory. After 32 weeks, 4 ZrO3 coated implants were in situ with 0 or I mobility. Radiographically the width of the peri‐implant space increased in direct proportion to both time and mobility. Histologic sections demonstrated encapsulating dense fibrous connective tissue which was oriented parallel to both ZrO2 and Al2O3 implants. Results suggest the zirconia used is a superior ceramic coating to the alumina. Neither seemed to increase biologic acceptability over uncoated Vitallium implants.</description><subject>Aluminum - pharmacology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biocompatible Materials - pharmacology</subject><subject>Chromium Alloys</subject><subject>Dental Implantation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Gingiva - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Gingiva - drug effects</subject><subject>Tooth Mobility - etiology</subject><subject>Vitallium - pharmacology</subject><subject>Zirconium - pharmacology</subject><issn>0021-9304</issn><issn>1097-4636</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1975</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kDlPxDAQRi0EgmWhpERKRRewY8dOSkDsciyHxNlZE8dBBidZ7ITr12OUFVBRzUjfm0-jh9AWwbsE42Tvqah3swTjHLMkX0IjgnMRM075MhqFnMQ5xWwNrXv_hAOVU7KKVgkRPMXZCB3v2742DUTQlNGncaptDESqhU6X0avpwFrT11HrwEa6KVvf6bCZem6h6XxkmqjQ8Gi130ArFVivNxdzjG4nRzeHx_HscnpyuD-LFWM4jznVipYFT4uEAk9FgjXJSuCQ61xVgqSMkSrVKWRlVRVECUWBAC8KEmKeCTpGO0Pv3LUvvfadrI1X2oZ_dNt7mVGcJBljAYwHULnWe6crOXemBvchCZbf5mQwJ3_MBX57UdwXtS5_6UFVyMWQvxmrP_4vk6cH53-bF5-YYO_95xLcs-SCilTeX0wlu8YPd1eTM3lGvwA_04lj</recordid><startdate>197507</startdate><enddate>197507</enddate><creator>Cranin, A. Norman</creator><creator>Schnitman, Paul A.</creator><creator>Rabkin, Michael</creator><creator>Dennison, Thomas</creator><creator>Onesto, E. J.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><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>197507</creationdate><title>Alumina and zirconia coated vitallium oral endosteal implants in beagles</title><author>Cranin, A. Norman ; Schnitman, Paul A. ; Rabkin, Michael ; Dennison, Thomas ; Onesto, E. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4409-63ec3db65b23a65720e18da6a9e9cf715441f5e5a8dffb1c7c3a1a6bb19cf6873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1975</creationdate><topic>Aluminum - pharmacology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biocompatible Materials - pharmacology</topic><topic>Chromium Alloys</topic><topic>Dental Implantation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Gingiva - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Gingiva - drug effects</topic><topic>Tooth Mobility - etiology</topic><topic>Vitallium - pharmacology</topic><topic>Zirconium - pharmacology</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cranin, A. Norman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schnitman, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabkin, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dennison, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onesto, E. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><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>Journal of biomedical materials research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cranin, A. Norman</au><au>Schnitman, Paul A.</au><au>Rabkin, Michael</au><au>Dennison, Thomas</au><au>Onesto, E. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Alumina and zirconia coated vitallium oral endosteal implants in beagles</atitle><jtitle>Journal of biomedical materials research</jtitle><addtitle>J. Biomed. Mater. Res</addtitle><date>1975-07</date><risdate>1975</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>257</spage><epage>262</epage><pages>257-262</pages><issn>0021-9304</issn><eissn>1097-4636</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study was to assess the addition of a ceramic coating upon a Vitallium implant to increase the implant's biologic acceptability in the oral environment. The mandibular premolar teeth in 9 adult beagle dogs were removed bilaterally and these areas allowed to heal for 6 weeks. Ceramic coating with either Al2O3 or ZrO2 was carried out by flame spray deposition upon Vitallium anchor implants (9 of each), and the implants placed into the 18 healed premolar areas. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was conducted by 2 independent investigators over a 32 week period. Implants which exhibited mobility greater than II on a scale of 0 to III, at intervals of one‐half, were judged unsatisfactory. After 19 weeks, all 9 Al2O3 coated implants and 5 ZrO2 coated implants were rated unsatisfactory. After 32 weeks, 4 ZrO3 coated implants were in situ with 0 or I mobility. Radiographically the width of the peri‐implant space increased in direct proportion to both time and mobility. Histologic sections demonstrated encapsulating dense fibrous connective tissue which was oriented parallel to both ZrO2 and Al2O3 implants. Results suggest the zirconia used is a superior ceramic coating to the alumina. Neither seemed to increase biologic acceptability over uncoated Vitallium implants.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>1176508</pmid><doi>10.1002/jbm.820090429</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0021-9304 |
ispartof | Journal of biomedical materials research, 1975-07, Vol.9 (4), p.257-262 |
issn | 0021-9304 1097-4636 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_83022844 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Aluminum - pharmacology Animals Biocompatible Materials - pharmacology Chromium Alloys Dental Implantation - instrumentation Dogs Gingiva - anatomy & histology Gingiva - drug effects Tooth Mobility - etiology Vitallium - pharmacology Zirconium - pharmacology |
title | Alumina and zirconia coated vitallium oral endosteal implants in beagles |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T16%3A53%3A44IST&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=Alumina%20and%20zirconia%20coated%20vitallium%20oral%20endosteal%20implants%20in%20beagles&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20biomedical%20materials%20research&rft.au=Cranin,%20A.%20Norman&rft.date=1975-07&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=257&rft.epage=262&rft.pages=257-262&rft.issn=0021-9304&rft.eissn=1097-4636&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jbm.820090429&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E83022844%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=83022844&rft_id=info:pmid/1176508&rfr_iscdi=true |