4.5 Article

Pulsed electromagnetic fields promote bone formation around dental implants inserted into the femur of rabbits

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 354-360

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011004354.x

Keywords

pulsed electromagnetic field; bone formation; dental implant; titanium; rough surface; femur; rabbit

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study examined the effect of applying a pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) on bone formation around a rough-surfaced dental implant. A dental implant was inserted into the femur of Japanese white rabbits bilaterally. A PEMF with a pulse width of 25 mu s and a pulse frequency of 100 Hz was applied. PEMF stimulation was applied for 4 h or 8 h per day, at a magnetic intensity of 0.2 mT, 0.3 mT or 0.8 mT The animals were sacrificed 1, 2 or 4 weeks after implantation. After staining the resin sections with 2% basic fuchsin and 0.1% methylene blue, newly formed bone around the implant on tissue sections was evaluated by computer image analysis. The bone contact ratios of the PEMF-treated femurs were significantly larger than those of the control groups. Both the bone contact ratio and bone area ratio of the 0.2 mT- and 0.3 mT-treated femurs were significantly larger than the respective value of the 0.8 mT-treated femurs (P<0.001). No significant difference in bone contact ratio or bone area ratio was observed whether PEMF was applied for 4 h/day or 8 h/day, Although a significantly greater amount of bone had formed around the implant of the 2-week treated femurs than the I-week treated femurs, no significant difference was observed between the 2-week and 4-week treated femurs. These results suggest that PEMF stimulation may be useful for promoting bone formation around rough-surfaced dental implants. It is important to select the proper magnetic intensity, duration per day, and length of treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available