Dental Implant Macro‐Design Features Can Impact the Dynamics of Osseointegration. (17th November 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vivan Cardoso, Marcio; Vandamme, Katleen; Chaudhari, Amol; De Rycker, Judith; Van Meerbeek, Bart; Naert, Ignace; Duyck, Joke
• Is Part Of: Clinical implant dentistry and related research. Volume 17:Number 4(2015:Aug.)
• Page Start: 639
• Page End: 645
• Publication Date: 2013-11-17
• Subjects: Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dental Implantation -- Periodicals; Dental Implants -- Periodicals; 617.693
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.12178
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1523-0899

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="cid12178-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Purpose</title> <p>The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of two dental implant types possessing a different macro‐design in the in vivo pig model.</p> </sec> <sec id="cid12178-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Materials and Methods</title> <p>Titanium Aadva<sup>TM</sup> implants (GC, Tokyo, Japan) were compared with OsseoSpeed<sup>TM</sup> implants (Astra, Mölndal, Sweden), with the Aadva implant displaying significant larger inter‐thread dimensions than the OsseoSpeed implant. Implants were installed in the parietal bone of 12 domestic pigs and left for healing for either 1 or 3 months. Implant osseointegration was evaluated by quantitative histology (bone volume relative to the tissue volume [BV/TV]; bone‐to‐implant contact [BIC]) for distinct implant regions (collar, body, total implant length) with specific implant thread features. The Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney nonparametric test with α = 0.05 was performed.</p> </sec> <sec id="cid12178-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>An inferior amount of bone enveloping the Aadva implant compared with the OsseoSpeed implant was observed, in particular at the implant body part with its considerable inter‐thread gaps (<italic>p</italic> < .05). Concomitantly, the Aadva macro‐design negatively affected the amount of bone in direct contact with the implant for this specific implant part (<italic>p</italic> < .05), and resulted in an overall impaired implant osseointegration at the initial healing stage (total implant length; 1‐month healing; <italic>p</italic> < .05).</p> </sec> <sec id="cid12178-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>Although the Aadva implant displayed a clinically acceptable level of osseointegration, the findings demonstrate that implant macro‐design features can impact the dynamics of implant osseointegration. Consideration of specific implant macro‐design features should be made relative to the biological and mechanical microenvironment.</p> </sec> </abstract>