共 25 条
Microrobotized blasting improves the bone-to-textured implant response. A preclinical in vivo biomechanical study
被引:3
作者:
Coelho, Paulo G.
[1
,2
,3
]
Gil, Luiz F.
[4
]
Neiva, Rodrigo
[5
]
Limbo, Ryo
[6
]
Tovar, Nick
[1
]
Lilin, Thomas
[7
]
Bonfante, Estevam A.
[8
]
机构:
[1] New York Univ, Dept Biomat & Biomimet, 433 1st Ave,Room 844, New York, NY 10010 USA
[2] New York Univ, Coll Dent, Dept Periodontol & Implant Dent, Res, 345E 24th St, New York, NY 10010 USA
[3] New York Univ, Dept Engn, Affiliated Fac, POB 129188, Abu Dhabi, U Arab Emirates
[4] Univ Fed Santa Catarina, Div Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Dept Dent, R Engn Agron Andrei Cristian Ferreira, BR-88040900 Florianopolis, SC, Brazil
[5] Univ Florida, Dept Periodontol, 1395 Ctr Dr, Gainesville, FL 32610 USA
[6] Malmo Univ, Dept Prosthodont, S-20506 Malmo, Sweden
[7] Ecole Natl Vet Alfort, 7 Ave Gen Gaulle, F-94704 Maisons Alfort, France
[8] Univ Sao Paulo, Bauru Coll Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Alameda Otavio Pinheiro Brisola 9-75, BR-1701290 Bauru, SP, Brazil
关键词:
Implant;
Surface;
Bone;
Mechanical;
Healing chamber;
Histology;
SURFACE-TOPOGRAPHY;
HISTOMORPHOMETRIC EVALUATION;
DENTAL IMPLANTS;
OSSEOINTEGRATION;
INTEGRATION;
INHIBITION;
ALUMINUM;
DOGS;
D O I:
10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.11.002
中图分类号:
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号:
0831 ;
摘要:
This study evaluated the effect of microrobotized blasting of titanium endosteal implants relative to their manually blasted counterparts. Two different implant systems were utilized presenting two different implant surfaces. Control surfaces (Manual) were fabricated by manually grit blasting the implant surfaces while experimental surfaces (Microblasted) were fabricated through a microrobotized system that provided a one pass grit blasting routine. Both surfaces were created with the same similar to 50 gm average particle size alumina powder at similar to 310 KPa. Surfaces were then etched with 37% HCl for 20 min, washed, and packaged through standard industry procedures. The surfaces were characterized through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and optical interferometry, and were then placed in a beagle dog radius model remaining in vivo for 3 and 6 weeks. The implant removal torque was recorded and statistical analysis evaluated implant system and surface type torque levels as a function of time in vivo. Histologic sections were qualitatively evaluated for tissue response. Electron microscopy depicted textured surfaces for both manual and microblasted surfaces. Optical interferometry showed significantly higher S-a, S-q, values for the microblasted surface and no significant difference for S-ds and S-dr values between surfaces. In vivo results depicted that statistically significant gains in biomechanical fixation were obtained for both implant systems tested at 6 weeks in vivo, while only one system presented significant biomechanical gain at 3 weeks. Histologic sections showed qualitative higher amounts of new bone forming around microblasted implants relative to the manually blasted group. Microrobotized blasting resulted in higher biomechanical fixation of endosteal dental implants and should be considered as an alternative for impant surface manufacturing. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:175 / 182
页数:8
相关论文