Influence of Three Dental Implant Surfaces on Cell Viability and Bone Behavior. An In Vitro and a Histometric Study in a Rabbit Model
The chemical composition and the surface characteristics of dental implants are factors that have a decisive effect on the osseointegration process. The surface characterization at the compositional and topographic level of three dental implants available in the market was performed with different s...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Sevilla (US) |
| Repositorio: | idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:idus.us.es:11441/101987 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/11441/101987 https://doi.org/10.3390/app10144790 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Dental implant surfaces Surface roughness Titanium Osseointegration Bone–implant interface |
| Sumario: | The chemical composition and the surface characteristics of dental implants are factors that have a decisive effect on the osseointegration process. The surface characterization at the compositional and topographic level of three dental implants available in the market was performed with different surface treatments: (1) sandblasted and acid etched surface (SLA), (2) hydroxyapatite (HA) and tricalcium phosphate (TCP) blasted surface (HA/TCP), and (3) HA-blasted and non-etching acid washed surface (HA + AW). In addition, an in vitro viability study of MG-63 osteoblast cells was performed with a JC-1 test. To complete the study, an in vivo study was conducted in New Zealand rabbits. The study analyzed the histometric characteristics of the bone formed around the implants at the level of area, volume, bone density, accumulated bone density, and bone–implant contact (BIC). The rabbits were sacrificed at 6 weeks after implants were placed in the tibial metaphysis. No statistically significant differences were observed at the level of cell viability or histometric parameters between the different study groups (p > 0.05). SLA and HA/TCP surfaces were the ones that obtained a higher BIC value. Taking into account the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the different implant surfaces analyzed favor a good bone response. |
|---|