Osseointegration- Key Factors Affecting Its Success-An Overview

Vootla, Naveen Reddy; Reddy, K. Varun

doi:10.9790/0853-1604056268

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since machined titanium dental implants were first used [1], enormous effort has been put into research to enhance osseointegration and increase the life span of implants. Many parameters have been identified that influence the period of healing time and bone stability [2–4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Sandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental implants by a meta-analysis utilizing the available data. The PROSPERO registration number of the meta-analysis is CRD42018084190. Methods The systematic search was performed in Cochrane, Embase and Pubmed. Inclusion criteria included participants with neither systemic diseases, nor excessive alcohol consumption, nor heavy smoking. We calculated pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) with confidence intervals of 95% (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes (implant failure) and weighted mean difference (WMD) CIs of 95% for continuous outcomes (marginal bone level change). We applied the random effect model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation. I 2 and chi 2 tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity and gain probability-values, respectively. Results Literature search revealed 130 records without duplicates. Out of these, seven studies met the inclusion criteria and all were included in data synthesis, involving 362 sand-blasted and 360 machined implants. The results indicate that there is an 80% (RR = 0.2 95% CI:0.06–0.67; I 2 = 0.0% p = 0.986) lower among sandblasted compared to machined implants after one year of use and 74% (RR = 0.26 95% CI:0.09–0.74; I 2 = 0.0% p = 0.968) five years of use, respectively. In contrast, there is no significant difference in MBL (WMD:-0.10mm, 95% CI:-0.20, 0.01; p>0.05; I 2 = 0.0%, p = 0.560 and WMD:-0.01mm, 95% CI:-0.12, 0.09; p>0.05; I 2 = 26.2%, p = 0.258) between the two implant surfaces after one and five years of use. Conclusions This meta-analysis reveals that sandblasting is superior over machined surface in implant failure but not in marginal bone level in healthy subjects. It also points out the need for further randomized clinical trials with large sample size for objective determination of the clinical benefits of certain implant surface modifications.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sandblasting was one of the first modifications invented, resulting in moderately rough or rough surfaces, and it is still used by many implant manufacturers [4, 7]. During the blasting process, ceramic particles such as titanium oxide, aluminum oxide or silica [10] are blustered onto the implant surface at high velocity [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figure 1 B shows that MA and BE surfaces presenting the characteristic peak of titanium at 690.52 cm −1 [ 9 ]. On the PSHA surface, the characteristic peak of PO4 −3 was observed between 1000 and 1100 [ 10 ], and of CO 3 in 1532 cm −1 [ 11 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a fundamental process that leads to osteointegration, ensuring that the material remains fixed to the bone tissue; thus, avoiding the risks related to implant movement, which can generate inflammatory processes, necrosis, and rejection [ 8 ]. Therefore, it may be considered that osteointegration is determinant for the clinical success of an implant [ 9 ]. These biological properties depend on the physical and chemical properties of each material, such as the roughness, wettability, and surface load, which impact on cell–surface interactions [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osteosphere Model to Evaluate Cell–Surface Interactions of Implantable Biomaterials

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful biomaterials for bone tissue therapy must present different biocompatible properties, such as the ability to stimulate the migration and proliferation of osteogenic cells on the implantable surface, to increase attachment and avoid the risks of implant movement after surgery. The present work investigates the applicability of a three-dimensional (3D) model of bone cells (osteospheres) in the evaluation of osteoconductive properties of different implant surfaces. Three different titanium surface treatments were tested: machined (MA), sandblasting and acid etching (BE), and Hydroxyapatite coating by plasma spray (PSHA). The surfaces were characterized by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM), confirming that they present very distinct roughness. After seeding the osteospheres, cell–surface interactions were studied in relation to cell proliferation, migration, and spreading. The results show that BE surfaces present higher densities of cells, leaving the aggregates towards than titanium surfaces, providing more evidence of migration. The PSHA surface presented the lowest performance in all analyses. The results indicate that the 3D model allows the focal analysis of an in vitro cell/surfaces interaction of cells and surfaces. Moreover, by demonstrating the agreement with the clinical data observed in the literature, they suggest a potential use as a predictive preclinical tool for investigating osteoconductive properties of novel biomaterials for bone therapy.

show abstract

“…However, reports on implant failures still remain. Successful osseointegration is determined by factors such as bone quality, implant type and design, surface composition, and topography 4,5) Microgaps or microspaces are likely to form in all implant-abutment interfaces (IAIs) of two-piece implants 6) . These microspaces induce the infiltration and proliferation of microbes, thereby contributing to the onset of peri-implant diseases, such as peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis 7) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of Morse taper implant design on microleakage at implant-healing abutment interface

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The microbial leakage at the implant-abutment interface (IAI) is one cause of peri-implant infection that puts long-term implant stability at risk. The present study compared two types of Morse taper implants in terms of sealing performance at the implanthealing abutment interface. Three implant systems, one of which exhibited a partial face-contact design (TSO) and the other two a line-contact design (TSM and BLT), were analyzed in vitro using two quantitative implant leakage measuring techniques: airinjection pressure measurement test and microbial examination. An in-house-developed device was used to determine implant leakage by recording the initial drop in pressure while injecting air through the implant. The microbial examination measured the absorbances of culture mediums in which the inoculated implants were contained. Significant difference was found between the partial face-and line-contact groups (p<0.001). Both tests revealed that partial face-contact implants are more prone to leakage than line-contact implants.

show abstract

Osseointegration- Key Factors Affecting Its Success-An Overview

Cited by 12 publications

References 2 publications

Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Osteosphere Model to Evaluate Cell–Surface Interactions of Implantable Biomaterials

The impact of Morse taper implant design on microleakage at implant-healing abutment interface

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About