A human histologic study was conducted to compare the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) at 6 months for Osseotite and machined, commercially pure titanium implant surfaces. To eliminate potential influences caused by differences in bone density at different intraoral locations, 2 mm x 5 mm, threaded, 2-surfaced titanium implants were manufactured; 1 side received the Osseotite surface modification and the opposite side maintained a machined surface. In each of 11 patients, 1 test implant was placed in the posterior maxilla (Types III and IV bone) during conventional dental implant surgery. Following 6 months of unloaded healing, the conventional implants were uncovered, and the test implants and surrounding hard tissue were removed. Histologic analysis indicated that at 6 months of unloaded healing, the mean BIC value for the Osseotite surfaces (72.96% +/- 25.13%) was statistically significantly higher (P < 0.05) than the mean BIC value for the machined surfaces (33.98% +/- 31.04%). When the BIC values for the machined and Osseotite surface pairs were ranked from high to low based on the machined BIC value range of 93% to 0%, the upper 50th percentile (20 surface pairs) mean BIC value was 86.1% +/- 16.7% for the Osseotite surfaces and 60.1% +/- 18.3% for the machined surfaces. The lower 50th percentile (19 surface pairs) mean BIC value was 59.1% +/- 25.3% for the Osseotite surfaces and 6.5% +/- 10.8% for the machined surfaces. Differences between mean BIC values for the 2 surfaces in both the upper and lower 50th percentiles were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The results of this study indicate that in the poorer quality bone typically found in the posterior maxilla, a statistically significantly higher percentage of bone contacts Osseotite surfaces when compared to opposing machined surfaces on the same implant.

A human histologic analysis of osseotite and machined surfaces using implants with 2 opposing surfaces / R. J. Lazzara, T. Testori, P. Trisi, S. S. Porter, R. L. Weinstein. - In: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERIODONTICS & RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY. - ISSN 0198-7569. - 19:2(1999 Apr), pp. 117-29-129.

A human histologic analysis of osseotite and machined surfaces using implants with 2 opposing surfaces

R. L. Weinstein
Ultimo
1999

Abstract

A human histologic study was conducted to compare the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) at 6 months for Osseotite and machined, commercially pure titanium implant surfaces. To eliminate potential influences caused by differences in bone density at different intraoral locations, 2 mm x 5 mm, threaded, 2-surfaced titanium implants were manufactured; 1 side received the Osseotite surface modification and the opposite side maintained a machined surface. In each of 11 patients, 1 test implant was placed in the posterior maxilla (Types III and IV bone) during conventional dental implant surgery. Following 6 months of unloaded healing, the conventional implants were uncovered, and the test implants and surrounding hard tissue were removed. Histologic analysis indicated that at 6 months of unloaded healing, the mean BIC value for the Osseotite surfaces (72.96% +/- 25.13%) was statistically significantly higher (P < 0.05) than the mean BIC value for the machined surfaces (33.98% +/- 31.04%). When the BIC values for the machined and Osseotite surface pairs were ranked from high to low based on the machined BIC value range of 93% to 0%, the upper 50th percentile (20 surface pairs) mean BIC value was 86.1% +/- 16.7% for the Osseotite surfaces and 60.1% +/- 18.3% for the machined surfaces. The lower 50th percentile (19 surface pairs) mean BIC value was 59.1% +/- 25.3% for the Osseotite surfaces and 6.5% +/- 10.8% for the machined surfaces. Differences between mean BIC values for the 2 surfaces in both the upper and lower 50th percentiles were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The results of this study indicate that in the poorer quality bone typically found in the posterior maxilla, a statistically significantly higher percentage of bone contacts Osseotite surfaces when compared to opposing machined surfaces on the same implant.
Dental Polishing; Titanium; Dental Implants; Alveolar Process; Humans; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis Design; Device Removal; Osseointegration; Bone Regeneration; Surface Properties
Settore MED/28 - Malattie Odontostomatologiche
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/195559
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 21
  • Scopus 198
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 169
social impact