Bone healing dynamics associated with 3 implants with different surfaces: Histologic and histomorphometric analyses in dogs

Jungwon Lee, Jung Min Yoo, Heithem Ben Amara, Yong Moo Lee, Young Jun Lim, Hae-Young Kim, Ki Tae Koo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active®), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive®), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive®). Methods: The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant surface×3 healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO. Conclusions: Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)25-38
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Periodontal and Implant Science
Volume49
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Feb 1

Fingerprint

Dogs
Bone and Bones
Wettability
Osseointegration
Alveolar Process
Cheek
Bone Remodeling
Bicuspid
Durapatite
Osteoblasts
Tongue
Sodium Chloride
Analysis of Variance
Demography
Acids

Keywords

  • Bone remodeling
  • Bone-implant interface
  • Cell-material interactions
  • Dental/endosteal implant
  • In vivo

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery
  • Periodontics

Cite this

Bone healing dynamics associated with 3 implants with different surfaces : Histologic and histomorphometric analyses in dogs. / Lee, Jungwon; Yoo, Jung Min; Amara, Heithem Ben; Lee, Yong Moo; Lim, Young Jun; Kim, Hae-Young; Koo, Ki Tae.

In: Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science, Vol. 49, No. 1, 01.02.2019, p. 25-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lee, Jungwon ; Yoo, Jung Min ; Amara, Heithem Ben ; Lee, Yong Moo ; Lim, Young Jun ; Kim, Hae-Young ; Koo, Ki Tae. / Bone healing dynamics associated with 3 implants with different surfaces : Histologic and histomorphometric analyses in dogs. In: Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science. 2019 ; Vol. 49, No. 1. pp. 25-38.
@article{6d1f58f4081d4280af1a1a29e697cf7d,
title = "Bone healing dynamics associated with 3 implants with different surfaces: Histologic and histomorphometric analyses in dogs",
abstract = "Purpose: This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active{\circledR}), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive{\circledR}), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive{\circledR}). Methods: The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant surface×3 healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO. Conclusions: Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.",
keywords = "Bone remodeling, Bone-implant interface, Cell-material interactions, Dental/endosteal implant, In vivo",
author = "Jungwon Lee and Yoo, {Jung Min} and Amara, {Heithem Ben} and Lee, {Yong Moo} and Lim, {Young Jun} and Hae-Young Kim and Koo, {Ki Tae}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5051/jpis.2019.49.1.25",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "25--38",
journal = "Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science",
issn = "2093-2278",
publisher = "Korean Academy of Periodontology",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bone healing dynamics associated with 3 implants with different surfaces

T2 - Histologic and histomorphometric analyses in dogs

AU - Lee, Jungwon

AU - Yoo, Jung Min

AU - Amara, Heithem Ben

AU - Lee, Yong Moo

AU - Lim, Young Jun

AU - Kim, Hae-Young

AU - Koo, Ki Tae

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Purpose: This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active®), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive®), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive®). Methods: The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant surface×3 healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO. Conclusions: Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.

AB - Purpose: This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active®), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive®), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive®). Methods: The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant surface×3 healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO. Conclusions: Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.

KW - Bone remodeling

KW - Bone-implant interface

KW - Cell-material interactions

KW - Dental/endosteal implant

KW - In vivo

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062846029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062846029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5051/jpis.2019.49.1.25

DO - 10.5051/jpis.2019.49.1.25

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85062846029

VL - 49

SP - 25

EP - 38

JO - Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

JF - Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

SN - 2093-2278

IS - 1

ER -