Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare, through biomechanical and histological analysis, the aluminium (AlO2) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) microparticles for blasting during the sandblasting acid surface treatment in titanium dental implants using a rabbit tibia model. Materials and methods: Forty-eight commercially available titanium dental implants were divided into two test groups (n = 24 per group): implants with surface treated by AlO2 followed by acid etching as control group (Con group) and implants with surface treated by TiO2 followed by acid etching as test group (Test group). The implants were randomly installed in both tibias of eight rabbits and block samples were removed 4 and 8 weeks after implantation. Resonance Frequency Analyses were performed immediately after the implantation and at 8 weeks. Twelve implants of each group were removed to measure the reverse torque. The remaining implants were used for histological analysis. The data were compared using statistical tests (α = 0.05). Results: In comparing the implant stability quotient at the two time points, no significant statistical differences were found (P > 0.05), as well as in the removal torque test at 8 weeks after implant placement, no found significant difference between the two groups was tested. Histomorphometric analysis showed a high degree of bone organization in all samples with no significant difference between groups in the bone-to-implant contact (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that the media of surface blasting (AlO2 or TiO2 microparticles) did not show significant differences in the tested parameters for assessing the osseointegration of the implants.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 802-807 |
| Journal | Clinical Oral Implants Research |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue number | 7 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Aluminium blasted
- Dental implants
- SLA surface
- Surface treatment
- Titanium blasted
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Oral Surgery
Cite this
A comparative evaluation between aluminium and titanium dioxide microparticles for blasting the surface titanium dental implants : An experimental study in rabbits. / Gehrke, Sergio A.; Ramírez-Fernandez, María P.; Granero Marín, José Manuel; Barbosa Salles, Marcos; Del Fabbro, Massimo; Calvo Guirado, José Luis.
In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 29, No. 7, 2018, p. 802-807.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparative evaluation between aluminium and titanium dioxide microparticles for blasting the surface titanium dental implants
T2 - An experimental study in rabbits
AU - Gehrke, Sergio A.
AU - Ramírez-Fernandez, María P.
AU - Granero Marín, José Manuel
AU - Barbosa Salles, Marcos
AU - Del Fabbro, Massimo
AU - Calvo Guirado, José Luis
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to compare, through biomechanical and histological analysis, the aluminium (AlO2) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) microparticles for blasting during the sandblasting acid surface treatment in titanium dental implants using a rabbit tibia model. Materials and methods: Forty-eight commercially available titanium dental implants were divided into two test groups (n = 24 per group): implants with surface treated by AlO2 followed by acid etching as control group (Con group) and implants with surface treated by TiO2 followed by acid etching as test group (Test group). The implants were randomly installed in both tibias of eight rabbits and block samples were removed 4 and 8 weeks after implantation. Resonance Frequency Analyses were performed immediately after the implantation and at 8 weeks. Twelve implants of each group were removed to measure the reverse torque. The remaining implants were used for histological analysis. The data were compared using statistical tests (α = 0.05). Results: In comparing the implant stability quotient at the two time points, no significant statistical differences were found (P > 0.05), as well as in the removal torque test at 8 weeks after implant placement, no found significant difference between the two groups was tested. Histomorphometric analysis showed a high degree of bone organization in all samples with no significant difference between groups in the bone-to-implant contact (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that the media of surface blasting (AlO2 or TiO2 microparticles) did not show significant differences in the tested parameters for assessing the osseointegration of the implants.
AB - Objective: The aim of this study was to compare, through biomechanical and histological analysis, the aluminium (AlO2) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) microparticles for blasting during the sandblasting acid surface treatment in titanium dental implants using a rabbit tibia model. Materials and methods: Forty-eight commercially available titanium dental implants were divided into two test groups (n = 24 per group): implants with surface treated by AlO2 followed by acid etching as control group (Con group) and implants with surface treated by TiO2 followed by acid etching as test group (Test group). The implants were randomly installed in both tibias of eight rabbits and block samples were removed 4 and 8 weeks after implantation. Resonance Frequency Analyses were performed immediately after the implantation and at 8 weeks. Twelve implants of each group were removed to measure the reverse torque. The remaining implants were used for histological analysis. The data were compared using statistical tests (α = 0.05). Results: In comparing the implant stability quotient at the two time points, no significant statistical differences were found (P > 0.05), as well as in the removal torque test at 8 weeks after implant placement, no found significant difference between the two groups was tested. Histomorphometric analysis showed a high degree of bone organization in all samples with no significant difference between groups in the bone-to-implant contact (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that the media of surface blasting (AlO2 or TiO2 microparticles) did not show significant differences in the tested parameters for assessing the osseointegration of the implants.
KW - Aluminium blasted
KW - Dental implants
KW - SLA surface
KW - Surface treatment
KW - Titanium blasted
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988880006&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988880006&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/clr.12973
DO - 10.1111/clr.12973
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84988880006
VL - 29
SP - 802
EP - 807
JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research
JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research
SN - 0905-7161
IS - 7
ER -