This study aimed to compare bone healing and implant stability for three types of dental implants: a threaded implant, a three-dimensional (3D)-printed implant without spikes, and a 3D-printed implant with spikes. In four beagle dogs, left and right mandibular premolars (2nd, 3rd, and 4th) and 1st molars were removed. Twelve weeks later, three types of titanium implants (threaded implant, 3D-printed implant without spikes, and 3D-printed implant with spikes) were randomly inserted into the edentulous ridges of each dog. Implant stability measurements and radiographic recordings were taken every two weeks following implant placement. Twelve weeks after implant surgery, the dogs were sacrificed and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupied (BAFO) were compared between groups. At implant surgery, the primary stability was lower for the 3D-printed implant with spikes (74.05 ± 5.61) than for the threaded implant (83.71 ± 2.90) (p = 0.005). Afterwards, no significant difference in implants’ stability was observed between groups up to post-surgery week 12. Histomorphometrical analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the three implants for BIC (p = 0.101) or BAFO (p = 0.288). Within the limits of this study, 3D-printed implants without spikes and threaded implants showed comparable implant stability measurements, BIC, and BAFO.
This study aims to investigate and assess salivary biomarkers and microbial profiles as a means of diagnosing periodontitis. A total of 121 subjects were included: 28 periodontally healthy subjects, 24 with Stage I periodontitis, 24 with Stage II, 23 with Stage III, and 22 with Stage IV. Salivary proteins (including active matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8), pro-MMP-8, total MMP-8, C-reactive protein, secretory immunoglobulin A) and planktonic bacteria (including Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Porphyromonas nigrescens, Parvimonas micra, Campylobacter rectus, Eubacterium nodatum, Eikenella corrodens, Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Actinomyces viscosus) were measured from salivary samples. The performance of the diagnostic models was assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) and area under the ROC curve (AUC) analysis. The diagnostic models were constructed based on the subjects’ proteins and/or microbial profiles, resulting in two potential diagnosis models that achieved better diagnostic powers, with an AUC value > 0.750 for the diagnosis of Stages II, III, and IV periodontitis (Model PA-I; AUC: 0.796, sensitivity: 0.754, specificity: 0.712) and for the diagnosis of Stages III and IV periodontitis (Model PA-II; AUC: 0.796, sensitivity: 0.756, specificity: 0.868). This study can contribute to screening for periodontitis based on salivary biomarkers.
Recently, double-root implants have been investigated using 3D-printed technology. Here, we investigated damping capacity, microcomputed tomographic (micro-CT) and histological analyses of double-root 3D-printed implants compared with single-root 3D printed implants. Single- and double-root 3D-printed implants were fabricated and placed at both sides of mandibular third and fourth premolars in four beagle dogs. The damping capacity was measured, and periapical X-rays were taken every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. The bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV) and bone mineral density (BMD) around the implants were measured with micro-CT. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) were measured in histological samples. The implant stability values between the groups were not significantly different, except at 4 and 12 weeks. The marginal bone changes were similar at the mesial and distal areas between the groups. The BV/TV and BMD values of the double-root 3D-printed implants showed no statistical difference through micro-CT analysis, but the double-root 3D-printed implants showed lower BIC and BAFO values through histomorphometric analysis compared to the single-root 3D-printed implants. Compared to single-root implants, 3D-printed double-root implants demonstrated comparable stability and bone remodeling around the fixtures, but the statistically significant bone loss in the furcation area remains problematic.
Purpose Hyaluronic acid (HA) affects angiogenesis and promotes the migration and differentiation of mesenchymal cells, thereby activating the osteogenic ability of osteoblasts. Although studies on the action of HA during bone regeneration are being actively conducted, the optimal dose of HA required for bone regeneration remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to elucidate the most effective HA dose for bone formation using a rat critical-size defect model. Methods Thirty rats were randomly divided into 5 groups, with 6 rats in each group. An absorbable collagen sponge soaked with HA or saline was used to fill an 8-mm defect, which was then covered with a collagen membrane. Different treatments were performed for each group as follows: (1) saline control, (2) 1 mg/mL HA, (3) 25 mg/mL HA, (4) 50 mg/mL HA, or (5) 75 mg/mL HA. After a healing period of 4 weeks, micro-computed tomography and histological analysis were performed. The obtained values were analyzed using analysis of variance and the Tukey test ( P <0.05). Results At week 4, the 75 mg/mL HA group had the highest bone volume/total volume ratio, new bone, and bone fill among the 5 groups, and these values were significantly different from those observed in the control group ( P <0.01) and 1 mg/mL HA group ( P <0.001). More active bone formation was observed in the higher-dose HA groups (25 mg/mL, 50 mg/mL, and 75 mg/mL HA), which included a large amount of woven bone. Conclusions The 75 mg/mL HA group showed better bone formation than the other groups (1, 25, and 50 mg/mL HA and control).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.