Resumen de Guided Bone Regeneration Around Titanium Plasma-Sprayed, Acid-Etched, and Hydroxyapatite-Coated Implants in the Canine Model
David L. Cochran, Kenneth A. Conner, Robert Sabatini, Dr. Brian L. Mealey, Vincent J. Takacs, Michael P. Mills
Guided Bone Regeneration Around Titanium Plasma-Sprayed, Acid-Etched, and Hydroxyapatite-Coated Implants in the Canine Model Kenneth A. Conner Department of Periodontics, Misawa AB. Japan; previously, Department of Periodentics, Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX Robert Sabatini Department of Periodontics, Langley AFB, VA; previously, Department of Periodentics, Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX Dr. Brian L. Mealey Department of Periodontics, Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX Vincent J. Takacs Department of Periodontics, Ramstein AB, Germany: previously, Department of Periodontics, Wiiford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX. TX.
Michael P. Mills Department of Periodontics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; previously, Department of Perlodontics, Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX.
David L. Cochrann Department of Periodontics, University of Texas Health Center at San Antonio.
Background: Endosseous dental implants with rough surfaces have been designed to improve early heal- ing, especially in areas of poor bone or insufficient bone quantity. The aim of this study was to histomor- phometrically assess the bone-to-implant contact on 3 different rough-surfaced implants following guided bone regeneration.
Methods: Mandibulaf premolars and first molars were extracted in 12 dogs, and healing was allowed for 6 months. Six implant osteotomy sites were prepared, 3 per side, followed by the creation of 7.3 mm wide by 5 mm deep surgical defects in the coronal section of the osteotomy sites. Ten-mm long titanium screw-type implants with titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS), hydroxyapatite-coated (HA), or acid-etched (AE) surfaces were placed; the surrounding defects were filled with canine demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft: implants/grafts were covered with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes; and the tissue was closed. Following a healing period of 4 months, the animals were sacrificed and mandibular blocks were harvested for histomorphometric analysis.
Results: The mean percentage of bone-to-implant contact in the defect and non-defect areas for the different implant surfaces was: AE 16.24% defect, and 28.78% non-defect; TPS 25.08% defect, and 16.96% non-defect; and HA 48.25% defect and 26.60% non-defect. Within the defect, the mean difference in the bone-to-implant contact was significant for HA compared to TPS (P<0.0001) and HA versus AE (P<0.0001); TPS versus AE was not significant (P = 0.063). In the non-defect areas, the mean difference in the bone-to-implant contact was not significant for AE versus TPS (P = 0.010); all other comparisons were not significant. There were 18 membrane exposures in the 72 implant sites. Data were analyzed again to assess the impact of membrane complications. Using a 1-way analysis of variance, the bone-to-implant contact was compared between the sites with and without membrane complications.
Conclusion: In this study, the bone-to-implant contact was greatest when an HA-coated implant was used. J Periodontal 2003;74:658-668 KEYWORDS: Animal studies, dental implants, follow-up studies, guided bone regeneration, hydroxyapatite/therapeutic use, membranes, artificial, membranes, barrier, polytetrafluoroethylene/therapeutic use, titanium.
