Histomorphometric Evaluation of Peri-Implant Bone Response to Intravenous Administration of Zoledronate (Zometa(R)) in an Osteoporotic Rat Model

被引:2
作者
Basudan, Amani M. [1 ]
Shaheen, Marwa Y. [1 ]
Niazy, Abdurahman A. [2 ]
van den Beucken, Jeroen J. J. P. [3 ]
Jansen, John A. [3 ]
Alghamdi, Hamdan S. [1 ]
机构
[1] King Saud Univ, Coll Dent, Dept Periodont & Community Dent, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
[2] King Saud Univ, Coll Dent, Dept Oral Med & Diagnost Sci, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
[3] Radboudumc, Dept Dent Biomat, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
dental implants; osseointegration; osteoporosis; zoledronate; animal model; TITANIUM IMPLANT; DENTAL IMPLANTS; ACID; BISPHOSPHONATES; OSSEOINTEGRATION; PREVENTION; OSTEOPENIA; CELLS;
D O I
10.3390/ma13225248
中图分类号
O64 [物理化学(理论化学)、化学物理学];
学科分类号
070304 ; 081704 ;
摘要
We evaluated the response to peri-implant bone placed in the femoral condyle of osteoporotic rats, following intravenous zoledronate (ZOL) treatment in three settings: pre-implantation (ZOL-Pre), post-implantation (ZOL-Post), and pre- + post-implantation (ZOL-Pre+Post). Twenty-four female Wistar rats were ovariectomized (OVX). After 12 weeks, the rats received titanium implants in the right femoral condyle. ZOL (0.04 mg/kg, weekly) was administered to six rats 4 weeks pre-implantation and was stopped at implant placement. To another six rats, ZOL was given post-implantation and continued for 6 weeks. Additional six rats received ZOL treatment pre- and post-implantation. Control animals received weekly saline intravenous injections. At 6 weeks post-implantation, samples were retrieved for histological evaluation of the percentage of bone area (%BA) and of the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (%BIC). BA% for ZOL-Pre (29.6% +/- 9.0%) and ZOL-Post (27.9% +/- 5.6%) rats were significantly increased compared to that of the controls (17.3% +/- 3.9%, p < 0.05). In contrast, ZOL-Pre+Post rats (20.4% +/- 5.0%) showed similar BA% compared to Saline controls (p = 0.731). BIC% revealed a significant increase for ZOL-Post (65.8% +/- 16.9%) and ZOL-Pre+Post (68.3% +/- 10.0%) rats compared with that of Saline controls (43.3% +/- 9.6%, p < 0.05), while ZOL-Pre rats (55.6% +/- 19%) showed a BIC% comparable to that of Saline controls (p = 0.408). Our results suggest that receiving intravenous ZOL treatment before or after implant placement enhances peri-implant bone responses in terms of bone area. However, the effect of different ZOL treatment regimens on BIC% was found to be inconclusive.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 13
页数:13
相关论文
共 49 条
[1]   OSSEOINTEGRATED TITANIUM IMPLANTS - REQUIREMENTS FOR ENSURING A LONG-LASTING, DIRECT BONE-TO-IMPLANT ANCHORAGE IN MAN [J].
ALBREKTSSON, T ;
BRANEMARK, PI ;
HANSSON, HA ;
LINDSTROM, J .
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, 1981, 52 (02) :155-170
[2]   The development and future of dental implants [J].
Alghamdi, Hamdan S. ;
Jansen, John A. .
DENTAL MATERIALS JOURNAL, 2020, 39 (02) :167-172
[3]  
Alghamdi HS, 2014, TISSUE ENG PART C-ME, V20, P493, DOI [10.1089/ten.TEC.2013.0327, 10.1089/ten.tec.2013.0327]
[4]  
Alghamdi HS, 2013, TISSUE ENG PART B-RE, V19, P233, DOI [10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0400, 10.1089/ten.TEB.2012.0400]
[5]   Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of oral implant failures, up to abutment connection [J].
Alsaadi, Ghada ;
Quirynen, Marc ;
Komarek, Arnost ;
van Steenberghe, Daniel .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2007, 34 (07) :610-617
[6]   Comparative study of axial and femoral bone mineral density and parameters of mandibular bone quality in patients receiving dental implants (vol 17, pg 1494, 2006) [J].
Amorim, M. A. L. ;
Takayama, L. ;
Jorgetti, V. ;
Pereira, R. M. R. .
OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2007, 18 (05) :703-709
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2018, Bone Mass Measurement: What the Numbers Mean
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2020, ACL PROD INF
[9]   Bisphosphonates and implants [J].
Aspenberg, Per .
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA, 2009, 80 (01) :119-123
[10]   Influence of estrogen status on endosseous implant osseointegration [J].
August, M ;
Chung, K ;
Chang, Y ;
Glowacki, J .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2001, 59 (11) :1285-1289