Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active®), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive®), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive®).Methods
The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant surface×3 healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed.Results
Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO.Conclusions
Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.
SUBMITTER: Lee J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6399089 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Lee Jungwon J Yoo Jung Min JM Amara Heithem Ben HB Lee Yong-Moo YM Lim Young-Jun YJ Kim Haeyoung H Koo Ki-Tae KT
Journal of periodontal & implant science 20190222 1
<h4>Purpose</h4>This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active<sup>®</sup>), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive<sup>®</sup>), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive<sup>®</sup>).<h4>Methods</h4>The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical pla ...[more]