Biomechanical and Biochemical Analyses of the Effects of Propranolol on the Osseointegration of Implants

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effects of systemic propranolol on the osseointegration of titanium implants. After the surgical insertion of titanium implants into the metaphyseal part of the tibiae of rats, the rats were randomly divided into three equal groups: the control (n ¼ 8), propranolol dosage-1 (PRP-1) (n ¼ 8), and propranolol dosage-2 (PRP-2) (n ¼ 8) groups. In the control group, the rats received no further treatment during the 4-week experimental period after the surgery. After the surgical insertion of the implants, the rats in the PRP-1 and PRP-2 groups were given 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg propranolol, respectively, every 3 days for the 4-week experimental period. After the experimental period, the rats were euthanized. Blood sera were collected for biochemical analysis, and the implants and surrounding bone tissues were used for the biomechanical reverse torque analysis. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's honest significant difference test were used for statistical analysis. The student t-test was used to analyze the data obtained from the tests and the controls. There were no significant differences in the reverse torque analysis results and the biochemical parameters (alkaline phosphatase, calcium, and phosphorus) of the groups (P > 0.05). Alkaline phosphatase was, however, found to be higher in test animals compared to the controls (P < 0.05). Also, propranolol did not biomechanically affect the osseointegration of titanium implants, while alkaline phosphatase activity was higher in the test animals.

Evaluation of the Effects of Systemic Irisin Hormone Application on Osseointegration of Titanium Implants: An Experimental Study

“…in our study, the reverse torque test was used to examine the effect of external irisin support on bone-implant contact, as in the literature. 27,28 In addition, while we can analyze a particular thin section histopathologically, we can evaluate the implant and all bone tissues around it in 3D with biomechanical analysis. Hence, biomechanical analysis was preferred in our study.…”

“…This reverse torque analysis is used as an objective evaluation criterion according to different designs and implants with surface properties and different bone-healing conditions. [26][27][28] The reverse torque analysis is an application that enables the evaluation of the bone implant connection in the bone within the entire circumference of the implant. Histopathological analysis, on the other hand, allows evaluation in a specific and very thin area, owing to its cross-sectional structure.…”

“…Histopathological analysis, on the other hand, allows evaluation in a specific and very thin area, owing to its cross-sectional structure. in our study, the reverse torque test was used to examine the effect of external irisin support on bone-implant contact, as in the literature 27,28 . In addition, while we can analyze a particular thin section histopathologically, we can evaluate the implant and all bone tissues around it in 3D with biomechanical analysis.…”

“…The reverse torque of the implant in the bone provides a measure of the force required to separate the tight connection between the bone and the implant, and indirectly gives a value. This reverse torque analysis is used as an objective evaluation criterion according to different designs and implants with surface properties and different bone-healing conditions 26–28 . The reverse torque analysis is an application that enables the evaluation of the bone implant connection in the bone within the entire circumference of the implant.…”

The impact of medication on osseointegration and implant anchorage in bone determined using removal torque—A review

“… 21.3 - Propranolol Systemic Rat, SD ± Propranolol l.d. Tibia 28 −32.3 - ( Tekin et al., 2021b ) ± Propranolol h.d. 0.0 - Solcoseryl Systemic Rabbit, JW CCEF ± solcoseryl Femur 14 5.6 30.0 ( Ochi et al., 2003 ) Collagen-CS Local Rat, Wistar OVX ± Collagen-CS Tibia 14 22.6 30.7 ( Stadlinger et al., 2013 ) 28 21.4 39.3 Fibrinogen Local Rat, SD ± Fibrinogen Tibia 14 −52.3 - ( Wermelin et al., 2008 ) S. officinale Systemic Rat, Holtzman ± S. officinale Tibia 7 18.6 - ( Spin-Neto et al., 2010 ) 14 33.3 - 28 −12.1 - 56 −22.2 - ASU Systemic Rat, Wistar ± ASU Tibia 60 6.0 24.0 ( de Oliveira et al., 2014 ) ASU Systemic Rat, Holtzman Arthritis ± ASU Tibia 1...…”