Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Biomechanical testing of microblasted, acid-etched/microblasted, anodized, and discrete crystalline deposition surfaces: an experimental study in beagle dogs
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, ISSN 0882-2786, E-ISSN 1942-4434, Vol. 28, no 1, p. 136-142Article in journal (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

PURPOSE: Modifications in implant surface topography and chemistry may alter the early bone response at different levels. This study characterized four implant surfaces and evaluated the biomechanical fixation and histologic response at early implantation times in a canine radius model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: External-hexagon Branemark-type implants were used with four experimental surfaces: microblasted (MI), acid-etched and microblasted (AAM), anodized (A), and discrete crystalline deposition (DCD). Surface topography was assessed by scanning electron microscopy, interferometry, and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The implants were placed in the central region of the radii of eight beagle dogs and remained in vivo for 10 or 30 days. The implants were torqued to interface failure, and a general linear statistical model with torque as the dependent variable and implant surface and time in vivo as independent variables was used. RESULTS: All surfaces presented were textured, and different surface chemistries were observed. No significant differences between implant surfaces were observed for torque at 10 days. However, at 30 days, the AAM surface presented significantly higher torque values compared to the DCD and A surfaces. Significantly higher torque values were observed at 30 days compared to 10 days (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly different biomechanical fixation dependent on surface preparation was observed after 30 days, and all surfaces were biocompatible and osteoconductive.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Quintessence , 2013. Vol. 28, no 1, p. 136-142
Keywords [en]
dental implant, histology, in vivo, osseointegration, surface properties
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-15823DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2331ISI: 000322062600022PubMedID: 23377058Local ID: 16417OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-15823DiVA, id: diva2:1419345
Available from: 2020-03-30 Created: 2020-03-30 Last updated: 2022-06-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records

Jimbo, Ryo

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jimbo, Ryo
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 13 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf