4.5 Article

Evaluation of a predictive model for implant surface topography effects on early osseointegration in the rat tibia model

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 40-46

出版社

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2001.112415

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Statement of problem. Alterations in commercially pure titanium (cp Ti) implant surface topography can be made to increase bone formation or the interfacial shear strength of bone at the functioning implant. It is not known whether these 2 goals are congruent or mutually exclusive. Purpose. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of implant surface topography parameters of calculated biomechanical significance on the process of bone formation in a rat tibia model of osseointegration. Material and methods. Implants (cp Ti grade IV) were machined and subsequently treated by grit blasting or grit blasting and 6.4 mol/L HCl. Measurements of surface roughness were made by atomic force microscopic analysis of similarly treated titanium disks. Cleaned and sterilized implants (12 machined, 12 with nonideal pit morphology: 12 with ideal pit morphology) were placed into the tibiae of 400-g male Wistar rats by using a series of drills, irrigation, and a self-tapping procedure, After 3 weeks, tibiae were harvested and processed and embedded in methyl methacrylate resin, Polished sections were examined by backscatter electron microscopy, and the percentage implant surface contacting bone nias measured with the Scionics PC image analysis program. Results. The implants possessing a proposed ideal pit morphology supported significantly greater bone formation at the implant surface (54% +/- 7% bone-to-implant contact [P<.003]) than the nonideal pit morphology (40% +/- 15%) or machined surfaces (34% +/- 6%). Conclusion. Implant surfaces with a proposed ideal pit morphology (which possess a calculated biomechanical significance) enhanced bone formation at early periods after placement in the rat tibia model.

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