Comparison of osseointegration between laser-etched and magnesium-incorporated oxidized implants in the rabbit femur

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 775-781

  Kang, Sang Hwan ^a   Cho, Jin Hyun ^a   Park, Sang Hun ^a   Toothaker, Randall ^b   Cho, Sung Am ^a  

^a Kyungpook National University   (South Korea)

^b VA NEBRASKA WESTERN IOWA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Histomorphometric analysis; Laser etched; Magnesium incorporated oxided implant; Removal torque

Indexed keywords

MAGNESIUM OXIDE; TITANIUM; TOOTH IMPLANT;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE REGENERATION; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL ETCHING; DEVICE REMOVAL; FEMUR; LASER; METHODOLOGY; RABBIT; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH IMPLANT; TORQUE; PROCEDURES; SURGERY;

ANIMALS; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; DENTAL ETCHING; DENTAL IMPLANTS; DEVICE REMOVAL; FEMUR; LASERS; MAGNESIUM OXIDE; OSSEOINTEGRATION; RABBITS; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TITANIUM; TORQUE;

EID: 84898134360     PISSN: 08822786     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2448     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Lampin M, Warocquier-Clerout R, Legris C, Degrange M, Sigot-Luizard MF. Correlation between substratum roughness and wettability, cell adhesion, and cell migration. J Biomed Mater Res 1997; 36: 99-108.
2. Lim YJ, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco MT. Surface characterization of variously treated titanium materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16: 333-342.
3. Lincks J, Boyal BD, Blanchard CR, et al. Response of MG 63 osteoblastlike cells to titanium and titanium alloy is dependent on surface roughness and composition. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 2219-2232.
4. Konig-Junior B, Beck TJ, Kappert HF, Kappert CC, Masuko TS. A study of different calcification areas in newly formed bone 8 weeks after insertion of dental implants in rabbit tibias. Ann Anat 1998: 180: 471-475.
5. Davies JE. Mechanisms of osseous integration. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11: 391-401.
6. Overgaard S, Lind M, Glerup H, Bunger C, Soballe K. Porous coated versus grit-blasted surface texture of hydroxyapatite coated implants during controlled micromotion: Mechanical and histomorphological results. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13: 449-458.
7. Palmquist A, Lindberg F, Emanuelsson L, et al. Biomechanical, histological, and ultrastructural analyses of laser micro- and nano-structured titanium alloy implants: A study in rabbit. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010; 15: 1476-1486
8. Cho SA, Jung SK. A removal torque of the laser treated titanium implants in rabbit tibia. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 4859-4863.
9. Kang SH, Cho SA. Comparison of removal torques for laser-treated titanium implants with anodized implants. J Craniofac Surg 2011; 22: 1491-1495.
10. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Byon ES, Albrektsson T. The bone response of oxidized bioactive and non-bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 6720-6730.
11. Sul YT, Johansson P, Chang BS, Byon ES. Bone tissue responses to MgOI and machine-turned implants in the rabbit femur. J Appl Biomater Biomech 2005; 3: 18-28.
12. Sul YT, Jeong YS, Johansson CB, Albrektsson T. Oxidized, bioactive implants are rapidly and strongly integrated in bone. Part I-Experimental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 521-526.
13. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Cho LR, Chang BS, Albrektsson T. Optimum surface properties of oxidized implants for reinforcement of osseointegration: Surface chemistry, oxide thickness, porosity, roughness and crystal structure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005; 20: 349-359.
14. Henry PJ, Tan A, Allan B, Hall J, Johansson C. Removal torque comparison of TiUnite and turned implants in the greyhound dog mandible. Appl Osseointegration Res 2000; 1: 15-17.
15. Huang HM, Xiropaidis AV, Sorensen RG, Albandar JM, Hall J, Wikesjö UM. Bone formation at titanium porous oxide oral implants in type IV bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 105-111.
16. Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19: 319-329.
17. Trisi P, Del Fabbro M. Biology and Biomechanics in Immediate Loading. In: Testori T, Galli F, Del Fabbro M (eds). Immediate Loading: A New Era in Oral Implantology. Chicago: Quintessence, 2010: 18-39.
18. Sennerby L, Thomsen P, Ericsson LE. A histomorphometric and biomechanical comparison of titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical and cancellous bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992; 7: 62-71.
19. Martínez-González JM, García-Sabán F, Ferrándiz-Bernal J, Gonzalo-Lafuente JC, Cano-Sánchez J, Barona-Dorado C. Removal torque and physico-chemical characteristics of dental implants etched with hydrofluoric and nitric acid. An experimental study in beagle dogs. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006; 11: e281-285.
20. Fuming H, Guoli Y, Xiaoxiang W, Shifang Z. The removal torque of titanium implant inserted in rabbit femur coated with biomimetic deposited Ca-P coating. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35: 754-765.
21. Yang GL, He FM, Song E, Hu JA, Wang XX, Zhao SF. In vivo comparison of bone formation on titanium implant surfaces coated with biomimetically deposited calcium phosphate or electrochemically deposited hydroxyapatite. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 669-680.