Effect of osteoporosis on fixation of osseointegrated implants in rats

Li, Yunfeng; He, Sheng; Hua, Yunwei; Hu, Jing

doi:10.1002/jbm.b.33787

Cited by 30 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dental implants were placed in a period ranging between 21 and 182 days after osteoporosis induction in 82.9% of the included studies. In a few studies, implants were placed 56 days, 60 days, 84 days and 168 days before osteoporosis induction, while in 2 studies, they were placed at the time of osteoporosis induction. Only in 1 study, the time of implant placement was not clearly defined .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osseointegration in osteoporotic‐like condition: A systematic review of preclinical studies

Dereka

Calciolari

Donos

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteoporosis is one of the most common skeletal disorders affecting a significant percentage of people worldwide. Research data suggested that systemic diseases such as osteoporosis could act as risk factors for osseointegration, jeopardizing the healing process and thus the predictability of dental implant success on compromised patients. It is well accepted that preclinical studies in animal models reproducing the osteoporotic condition are one of the most important stages in the research of new biomaterials and therapeutic modalities. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether osteoporosis compromises dental implant osseointegration in experimental osteoporotic-like conditions. A 3-stage systematic literature research was conducted in MEDLINE via OVID and EMBASE up to and including March 2017. Experimental studies reporting on dental implant osseointegration on different osteoporotic animal models were assessed. The studies had to report on the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) as the primary outcome. ARRIVE guidelines for reporting on animal research were applied to evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias of the studies. Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed qualitatively. The most adopted animal model was the rat. A variability of %BIC values was observed, ranging from 30% to 99% and from 26% to 94% for the healthy and osteoporotic group, respectively. The great majority (47) of the included studies concluded that estrogen deficiency significantly affects BIC values, 9 studies stated that it was not possible to observe statistical differences in BIC between ovariectomized and healthy groups and 1 study did not provide a comparison between the healthy and osteoporotic group. Owing to the great heterogeneity in implant surface, study design, observation time-points, site of implant placement and reported outcomes, a meta-analysis could not be performed. An overall high risk of bias was observed, owing to the limited information on animal housing and husbandry, baseline characteristics and health status, ethical statement and allocation to the experimental groups provided. Although the available studies seem to suggest a lower osseointegration in osteoporotic-like conditions, no robust conclusions can be drawn due to the great heterogeneity and overall low quality of the available studies. Future studies with emphasis on minimizing the possible sources of bias and evaluating osseointegration of dental implants placed into jawbones instead of long bones are warranted.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osseointegration in osteoporotic‐like condition: A systematic review of preclinical studies

Dereka

Calciolari

Donos

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well accepted that osteopenic animals display reduced peri‐implant bone volume when compared to control groups (see Fig. c) . Likewise, those animals have deteriorated peri‐implant bone microarchitectures.…”

Section: Influence Of Osteoporosis On Bone Regenerationmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…2c). 49,54,58,[63][64][65][66] Likewise, those animals have deteriorated peri-implant bone microarchitectures. 51,64,67 Clearly, structurally deteriorated bones have a negative biomechanical impact on implant anchorage.…”

Section: Microstructural Modification Of Peri-implant Bonementioning

confidence: 99%

Bone remodeling and mechanobiology around implants: Insights from small animal imaging

Müller

Ruffoni

2017

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anchorage of orthopedic implants depends on the interfacial bonding between the implant and the host bone as well as on the mass and microstructure of peri-implant bone, with all these factors being continuously regulated by the biological process of bone (re)modeling. In osteoporotic bone, implant integration may be jeopardized not only by lower peri-implant bone quality but also by reduced intrinsic regeneration ability. The first aim of this review is to provide a critical overview of the influence of osteoporosis on bone regeneration post-implantation. Mechanical stimulation can trigger bone formation and inhibit bone resorption; thus, judicious administration of mechanical loading can be used as an effective non-pharmacological treatment to enhance implant anchorage. Our second aim is to report recent achievements on the application of external mechanical stimulation to improve the quantity of periimplant bone. The review focuses on peri-implant bone changes in osteoporotic conditions and following mechanical loading, prevalently using small animals and in vivo monitoring approaches. We intend to demonstrate the necessity to reveal new biological information on peri-implant bone mechanobiology to better target implant anchorage and fracture fixation in osteoporotic conditions. ß

show abstract

“…The definition of OI is "direct structural and functional connection between living bone and the surface of an artificial implant" (Brånemark, Brånemark, Rydevik, & Myers, 2001). The environmental factors include loading conditions, host bone properties, interface distance, the concentration of local osteoblast and osteoclast, and systemic illness (diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and smoking) (Annibali, Pranno, Cristalli, la Monaca, & Polimeni, 2016;Li, He, Hua, & Hu, 2017;Shibamoto et al, 2018). It is demonstrated that the OI process can be influenced by a variety of factors, which might be generally divided into two aspects: the environment of the bone-implant interface and the design of the implant itself.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is demonstrated that the OI process can be influenced by a variety of factors, which might be generally divided into two aspects: the environment of the bone-implant interface and the design of the implant itself. The environmental factors include loading conditions, host bone properties, interface distance, the concentration of local osteoblast and osteoclast, and systemic illness (diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and smoking) (Annibali, Pranno, Cristalli, la Monaca, & Polimeni, 2016;Li, He, Hua, & Hu, 2017;Shibamoto et al, 2018). The second aspect consists of materials; surface coating; topology; macro-, micro-, and nanostructure of the implants, and so on.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of implants surface modification in osseointegration: A systematic review

Liu

Rath

Tingart

et al. 2019

J Biomedical Materials Res

205

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term and stable fixation of implants is one of the most important points for a successful orthopedic surgery in the field of endoprosthesis. Osseointegration (OI), functional connection between bone and implants, is considered as a pivotal process of cementless implant fixation and integration, respectively. OI is affected by various factors of which the property of implants is of high significance. The modification of implants surface for better OI has raised increasing attention in modern orthopedic medicine. Here, the process of OI and the interactions between implants and ambient bone tissues were emblazed. The knowledge regarding the contemporary surface modification strategies was systematically analyzed and reviewed, including materials used for the fabrication of implants, advanced modification techniques, and key factors in the design of porous implants structure. We discussed the superiority of current surface modification programs and concluded that the problems remain to be solved. The primary intention of this systematic review is to provide comprehensive reference information and an extensive overview for better fabrication and design of orthopedic implants. K E Y W O R D Sbiomaterials, orthopedic implants, osseointegration, surface modification

show abstract

Effect of osteoporosis on fixation of osseointegrated implants in rats

Cited by 30 publications

References 22 publications

Osseointegration in osteoporotic‐like condition: A systematic review of preclinical studies

Osseointegration in osteoporotic‐like condition: A systematic review of preclinical studies

Bone remodeling and mechanobiology around implants: Insights from small animal imaging

Role of implants surface modification in osseointegration: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About