Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces

Corresponding Author

Jan Gottlow DDS, PhD

Researcher, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;

Dr. Jan Gottlow, Department of Biomaterials, Gothenburg University, PO Box 412, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Sargon Barkarmo DDS,

Sargon Barkarmo DDS

research student, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;

Search for more papers by this author

Lars Sennerby DDS, PhD,

Lars Sennerby DDS, PhD

professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute for Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Jan Gottlow DDS, PhD,

Corresponding Author

Jan Gottlow DDS, PhD

Researcher, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;

Dr. Jan Gottlow, Department of Biomaterials, Gothenburg University, PO Box 412, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Sargon Barkarmo DDS,

Sargon Barkarmo DDS

research student, Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Surgical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden;

Search for more papers by this author

Lars Sennerby DDS, PhD,

Lars Sennerby DDS, PhD

professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute for Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 05 April 2012

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00439.x

Citations: 46

[Correction statement added after online publication 17 August 2012: author name Sargon Barkamo corrected to Sargon Barkarmo.]

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

ABSTRACT

Background: Various designs of dental implants representing different geometries and surface technologies are commercially available and clinically used in patients. However, data with regard to bone tissue responses and stability for comparison of their biologic performances are rare.

Purpose: The aim of the present experimental investigation was to compare the bone tissue responses and implant stability between two commonly used dental implants representing different geometries and surface characteristics.

Materials and Methods: A total of 90 dental implants (4.3 mm in diameter, 10 mm long) with an oxidized surface (Replace Select Tapered, TiUnite, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) (OX) and 90 implants (4.1 mm in diameter, 10 mm total length) with a hydrophilic sand-blasted and acid etched surface (Standard Plus, SLActive, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) (HSBA) were placed in the distal femur (n = 1) and tibia (n = 2) of 30 rabbits. The implants were analyzed with implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements, removal torque (RTQ) and histomorphometry (bone–implant contact, BIC) after 10 days, 3, and 6 weeks. Moreover, RTQ values were corrected for differences in surface area by calculating the shear strength for each implant.

Results: RTQ and ISQ measurements showed an increase with time for both implant types. A significantly higher RTQ value was observed for the HSBA implant at 3 weeks (p = .05). A lower ISQ value was seen for HSBA than for OX implants at placement in the tibia (p < 0.001). HSBA implants showed higher shear strength values than OX implants after 3 weeks (p < .001), and 6 weeks (p < .01). The morphometric measurements showed significantly higher BIC for HSBA implants after 10 days (p < .01), similar values after 3 weeks and significantly higher BIC for OX implants after 6 weeks (p < .001).

Conclusions: Both HSBA and OX implants were well integrated in bone and showed firm and increased stability from placement to after 6 weeks of healing. The HSBA implant showed more BIC after 10 days and the OX implant more BIC after 6 weeks of healing. The HSBA implant showed significantly higher shear strength after 3 and 6 weeks and higher RTQ values after 3 weeks than the OX implant. The results may be due to differences in surface roughness and hydrophilic properties.

REFERENCES

1 Albektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: part 1 – review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 536–543.
Google Scholar
2 Stanford CM. Surface modifications of dental implants. Aust Dent J 2008; 53 (Suppl 1): S26–S33.
10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00038.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 O'Sullivan D, Sennerby L, Meredith N. Measurements comparing the initial stability of five designs of dental implants: a human cadaver study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2000; 2: 85–92.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00110.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
4 Osborn JF, Newesely H. Dynamic aspects of the bone-implant interface. In: G Heimke, ed. Dental implants: materials and systems. Munchen: Carl Hansen Verlag, 1980: 111–123.
Google Scholar
5 Davies JE. Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Educ 2003; 67: 932–949.
10.1002/j.0022-0337.2003.67.8.tb03681.x
PubMed Google Scholar
6 Zechner W, Tangl S, Fürst G, et al. Osseous healing characteristics of three different implant types. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 150–157.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140203.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Ivanoff CJ, Hallgren C, Widmark G, Sennerby L, Wennerberg A. Histologic evaluation of the bone integration of TiO(2) blasted and turned titanium microimplants in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001; 12: 128–134.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012002128.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Burgos PM, Rasmusson L, Meirelles L, Sennerby L. Early bone tissue responses to turned and oxidized implants in the rabbit tibia. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2008; 10: 181–190.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00074.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, et al. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res 2004; 83: 529–533.
10.1177/154405910408300704
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Schwarz F, Ferrari D, Herten M, et al. Effects of surface hydrophilicity and microtopography on early stages of soft and hard tissue integration at non-submerged titanium implants: an immunohistochemical study in dogs. J Periodontol 2007; 78: 2171–2184.
10.1902/jop.2007.070157
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Schwarz F, Sager M, Ferrari D, Herten M, Wieland M, Becker J. Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at non-submerged and submerged chemically modified (SLActive) and conventional SLA titanium implants: an immunohistochemical study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 64–75.
10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01159.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Wall I, Donos N, Carlqvist K, Jones F, Brett P. Modified titanium surfaces promote accelerated osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stromal cells in vitro. Bone 2009; 45: 17–26.
10.1016/j.bone.2009.03.662
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Lai HC, ZHuang LF, Zhang ZY, Wieland M, Liu X. Bone apposition around two different sandblasted, large-grit and acid-ecthed implant surfaces at sites with coronal circumferential defects. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 247–253.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01651.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Rao W, Benzi R. Single manibular first molar implants with flapless guided surgery and immediate function: preliminary clinical and radiographic results of a prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97: 3–14.
10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60003-1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Fischer K, Bäckström M, Sennerby L. Immediate and early loading of oxidized tapered implants in the partially edentulous maxilla: a 1-year prospective clinical, radiographic, and resonance frequency analysis study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009; 11: 69–80.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00096.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Bahat O. Technique for placement of oxidized titanium implants in compromised maxillary bone: prospective study of 290 implants in 126 consecutive patients followed for a minimum of 3 years after loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 325–334.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Ganeles J, Zöllner A, Jackowski J, ten Bruggenkate C, Beagle J, Guerra F. Immediate and early loading of Strauman implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: 1-year results from a prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 19: 1119–1128.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01626.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Brägger U, Buser D. Early loading at 21 days of non-submerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface: two-yer results of a prospective two-center study. J Periodontol 2010; 81: 809–818.
10.1902/jop.2010.090727
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Wennerberg A, Galli S, Albrektsson T. Current knowledge about the hydrophilic and nanostructured SLActive surface. Clin Cosmetic Inv Dent 2011; 3: 59–67.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
20 Hall J, Lausmaa J. Properties of a new porous oxide surface on titanium implants. Appl Osseointegration Res 2000; 1: 5–8.
Google Scholar
21 Ivanoff CJ, Sennerby L, Johansson C, Rangert B, Lekholm U. Influence of implant diameters on the integration of screw implants. An experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997; 26: 141–148.
10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80837-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Ivanoff CJ, Sennerby L, Lekholm U. Influence of mono- and bicortical anchorage on the integration of titanium implants. A study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996; 25: 229–235.
10.1016/S0901-5027(96)80036-1
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Sul YT, Byon E, Wennerberg A. Surface characteristics of electrochemically oxidized implants and acid-etched implants: surface chemistry, prophology, pore configurations, oxide thickness, crystal structure and roughness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 631–640.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Sennerby L, Meredith N. Implant stability measurements using resonance frequency analysis: biological and biomechanical aspects and clinical implications. Periodontol 2000 2008; 47: 51–66.
10.1111/j.1600-0757.2008.00267.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991; 25: 889–902.
10.1002/jbm.820250708
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Astrand P, Engquist B, Anzén B, et al. A three-year follow-up report of a comparative study of ITI Dental Implants and Brånemark System implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004; 6: 130–141.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00213.x
PubMed Google Scholar
27 Astrand P, Engquist B, Dahlgren S, Gröndahl K, Engquist E, Feldmann H. Astra Tech and Brånemark system implants: a 5-year prospective study of marginal bone reactions. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2004; 15: 413–420.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01028.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Glauser R, Rée A, Lundgren A, Gottlow J, Hämmerle CH, Schärer P. Immediate occlusal loading of Brånemark implants applied in various jawbone regions: a prospective, 1-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001; 3: 204–213.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00142.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
29 Glauser R, Lundgren AK, Gottlow J, et al. Immediate occlusal loading of Brånemark TiUnite implants placed predominantly in soft bone: 1-year results of a prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5 (Suppl 1): 47–56.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00015.x
PubMed Google Scholar
30 Rocci A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J. Immediate loading of Brånemark System TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible: a randomized open-ended clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5 (Suppl 1): 57–63.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00016.x
Google Scholar
31 Ostman PO, Hellman M, Sennerby L. Immediate occlusal loading of implants in the partially edentate mandible: a prospective 1-year radiographic and 4-year clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 315–322.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Brechter M, Nilsson H, Lundgren S. Oxidized titanium implants in reconstructive jaw surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7 (Suppl): S83–S87.
10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00079.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 Herberer S, Kilic S, Hossamo J, Raguse JD, Nelson K. Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with modified and conventional sanblasted acid-etched implants: preliminary results of a split-mouth study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 546–551.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02050.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume14, Issues1

Special Issue:Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Prosthodontic Supplement 2012: Contemporary Insight Into Implant Prosthodontics

May 2012

Pages e204-e212

An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Clinically Used Implant Designs and Surfaces

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley