Comparative Analysis of Surface Modification Techniques for Assessing Oral Implant Osseointegration: An Animal Study
Karthik K S,B Sreevidya,Ramya T K,Divya Bm,N R Dedeepya,Bhumika Kamal Badiyani,Amit Kumar,Divya BM
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.54014
2024-02-11
Cureus
Abstract:BACKGROUND: Effective implant placement depends critically on the implant's level of osseointegration with the alveolar bone. To increase osseointegration during implant placement, research has concentrated on the surface modification of implants, and morphological analyses have looked at the thread pattern in close interaction with the bone's surface.AIM: This study aimed to assess and compare the extent of oral implant osseointegration in different surface modification techniques.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 12 healthy adult dogs aged 18-24 months were used. Tooth extractions were performed on both sides of the mandible, and wounds were closed with sutures. Two months later, the right mandible of each dog underwent local anesthesia and general anesthesia. Four different implant types were placed based on their surface treatments: resorbable blast media (RBM)-treated implants, hydroxyapatite (HA) implants with an ultra-thin HA film, hydrothermal-treated HA implants coated with HA, and sandblasting combined acid etching (SLA) implants treated with plasma spray and acid etching. A total of 48 implants were divided into two- and four-week groups, with identical dimensions. Each dog received two implants from each group, for a total of eight implants per dog. The implants were securely placed into the superior alveolar bone with a torque greater than 35-N up to a depth of 1 mm. Periotest M (Medizintechnik Gulden e.K., Modautal, Germany) was used to calculate the periotest value (PTV) as a typical value on the buccal side of each implant immediately following placement and sacrifice to test the main fixation and stability of the implants. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was utilised by Osstell Mentor (Osstell AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) to simultaneously assess the implant stability quotient (ISQ) on the medial, distal, buccal, and lingual sides of the implant. The rotational torque in one of the sacrificed dogs was calculated using the MGT 50 (ELECTROMATIC Equipment Co., Inc., New York, USA) torque analyzer. The histomorphometric evaluation was performed using an optical microscope (Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). The upper half's bone-implant contact (BIC), which was found to be more important for implant stability, was studied together with the ratio of the new bone formation area (NBFA) to the complete implant.RESULTS: The maximum stability was observed in HA-treated implants in the fourth week. The minimum stability was observed in hydrothermal-treated HA implants in the fourth week. The stability in each group was greater in the four-week evaluation as compared to the two-week evaluation. The stability was satisfactory in almost all implants at two- and three-week evaluations. The maximum value of the percentage area of newly formed bone at the two- and four-week evaluations was observed in HA-treated implants. The minimum value of the percentage of the area of newly formed bone at two- and four-week evaluations was observed in SLA and RBM-treated implants respectively. The difference was significant statistically (p ≤ 0.05).CONCLUSION: All implant surface modifications, in general, produced satisfactory osseointegration. Excellent osseointegration was seen in the upper portion of the implant with hydrothermally treated HA.