4.5 Article

Osseointegration assessment of chairside argon-based nonthermal plasma-treated Ca-P coated dental implants

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.34304

关键词

implant surface treatment; argon plasma; modified surface; osseointegration; in vivo

资金

  1. Bicon LLC, Boston, MA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effect of an Argon-based nonthermal plasma (NTP) surface treatment-operated chairside at atmospheric pressure conditions applied immediately prior to dental implant placement in a canine model. Surfaces investigated comprised: Calcium-Phosphate (CaP) and CaP + NTP (CaP-Plasma). Surface energy was characterized by the Owens-Wendt-Rabel-Kaelble method and chemistry by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Six adult beagles dogs received 2 plateau-root form implants (n = 1 each surface) in each radii, providing implants that remained 1 and 3 weeks in vivo. Histometric parameters assessed were bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO). Statistical analysis was performed by Kruskall-Wallis (95% level of significance) and Dunn's post-hoc test. The XPS analysis showed peaks of Ca, C, O, and P for the CaP and CaP-Plasma surfaces. Both surfaces presented carbon primarily as hydrocarbon (C-C, C-H) with lower levels of oxidized carbon forms. The CaP surface presented atomic percent values of 38, 42, 11, and 7 for C, O, Ca, and P, respectively, and the CaP-Plasma presented increases in O, Ca, and P atomic percent levels at 53, 12, and 13, respectively, in addition to a decrease in C content at 18 atomic percent. At 1 week no difference was found in histometric parameters between groups. At 3 weeks significantly higher BIC and BAFO were observed for CaP-Plasma treated surfaces. Surface elemental chemistry was modified by the Ar-based NTP. Ar-based NTP improved bone formation around plateau-root form implants at 3 weeks compared with CaP treatment alone. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 101A:98103, 2013.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据