In vivo monitoring of the bone healing process around different titanium alloy implant surfaces placed into fresh extraction sockets

Columbo, JS, Satoshi, S, Okazaki, J, Crean, St John orcid iconORCID: 0000-0001-9336-8549, Sloan, AJ and Waddington, RJ (2012) In vivo monitoring of the bone healing process around different titanium alloy implant surfaces placed into fresh extraction sockets. Journal Of Dentistry, 40 (4). pp. 338-346. ISSN 0300-5712

[thumbnail of Publisher's post-print for classroom teaching and internal training purposes at UCLan] PDF (Publisher's post-print for classroom teaching and internal training purposes at UCLan) - Published Version
Restricted to Registered users only

2MB

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.01.010

Abstract

Objectives:
Increasing surface roughness and coating with tricalcium phosphate of titanium and titaniumalloyimplants has been proposed to provide better rates of osseointegration. However, how these changes in surface topography and chemistry influence the osseointegration process of immediate implantsplaced in freshextractionsockets is unclear. This study investigated the influence of three clinically employed implantsurfaces on the early bonehealing events in vivo.

Methods:
Machined smooth implants were milled from grade 5 Ti6Al4V titanium. Surfaces were moderately roughened by grit blasting, which were then coated with tricalcium phosphate. Implants were placed into freshly extracted incisor sockets of mandibles of normal Wistar rats and left for 1, 3 and 9 weeks. Healingbone tissue around the implants was examined by histochemistry and immunocytochemistry to localise PCNA proliferative cells, and osteoblast differentiation markers osteopontin and osteocalcin. Positive synthesising cells were counted using image analysis.

Results:
Histology indicated no differences in the amount or pattern of bone formation within the healing tissue surrounding the differentimplantsurfaces. Bonehealing occurred predominantly on exposed bonesurfaces (distance osteogenesis) and not on the implantsurface (contact osteogenesis). No differences were observed in the number or timing of PCNA, osteopontin and osteocalcin positive cells within the bonehealing tissue around each of the implant analysed.

Conclusion:
For immediately placedimplants, the surface modifications investigated appeared to have little influence on the activity of bone forming cells surrounding the implant, probably due to the high level of distance osteogenesis seen within this scenario.

Clinical significance:
For immediate placement of implants into freshextractionsockets, titaniumimplants with roughened surfaces and coating with tricalcium phosphate have negligible influence in accelerating the early bonehealing events of osseointegration.


Repository Staff Only: item control page