Characteristics of 2 Different Commercially Available Implants with or without Nanotopography

308
-1

Published on

This animal study aims to observe the early bone forming properties of two commercially available implants,
One supposedly possessing nanostructures formed by ions bombardment.
and another chemically modified implant with calcium incorporated anodic oxidation

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
308
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Characteristics of 2 Different Commercially Available Implants with or without Nanotopography

  1. 1. Characteristics of 2 Different Commercially Available Implants with or without Nanotopography Ali Al Enezi 2014
  2. 2. LINK: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijd/2013/769768/
  3. 3. Replacing a missing tooth with endosseous implants has been recognized as a long-term successful treatment option. single-tooth restorations with implant showed success rate of 96.6% in the maxillae and 100% in the mandibles (Henry, P.J.,1996) .
  4. 4. When treating patients with unfavourable bone quality there may be need to develop implant surface that provides faster integration to shorten the treatment time.
  5. 5. PHISYCAL CHEMICAL TOPOGRAPHICAL
  6. 6. Common modification techniques Acid etching HA coating Anodic oxidation Blasting
  7. 7. At what Level implant surface can be modified !.. Within millimeter level Macro Within micro-meter level Micro (0 -100) nano meter level Nano SURFACE
  8. 8. Effects of Nano structures on implant surface could modify cellular shape and influence the migration and differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. several studies reported that the application of nanostructures increases the bioactivity of the implant surface Adhesion differentiation proliferation
  9. 9. Aim of the study To observe the early bone forming properties of two commercially available implants, One supposedly possessing nanostructures formed by ions bombardment. and another chemically modified implant with calcium incorporated anodic oxidation.
  10. 10. Materials AND methods
  11. 11. Implant Surface Preparation µ: microblasted P-I with titanium oxide (TiO2 ) N: ion bombarded oxidized surface with calcium and phosphate incorporation OSPOL
  12. 12. Surface characterization Interferometer Evaluate surface topography at micro level Atomic force microscopy Evaluate surface topography at nano level
  13. 13. Surface characterization Scanning electron microscopy To examine surface morphology at high magnification X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy to analyze the chemical composition at the surface outer layer
  14. 14. Animals And Surgery • • • • 12 rabbits. 24 implants (12 for each group) Inserted in the femur. 3 weeks healing time.
  15. 15. Histology and Histomorphometry All implant threads Top 3 threads
  16. 16. Histology and Histomorphometry Bone-implant contact
  17. 17. Histology and Histomorphometry bone area
  18. 18. Histology and Histomorphometry new bone area
  19. 19. Results
  20. 20. The interferometer P-I OSPOL • minimally rough surface • smooth surface • higher amount of developed surface
  21. 21. Atomic force microscopy P-I OSPOL under high resolution the P-I showed less surface roughness compared to OSPOL.
  22. 22. Scanning Electron Microscopy P-I OSPOL Nano sized bumps with nanoparticles less than 100 nm in size X 200K smooth surface with porous structures with a diameter of 300–500 nm
  23. 23. X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy P Ti O Ca C N the largest difference between the two surfaces is the presence of calcium and phosphate on the Ospol surface. However, a relatively small amount of calcium was observed also on the P-I surface.
  24. 24. Histology & histomorphometery
  25. 25. P-I Bone-implant contact OSPOL 54.75 52.41 All threads 59.25 Top 3 threads 58.08
  26. 26. P-I Bone area OSPOL 54.33 52.75 All threads 59.08 57.16 Top 3 threads
  27. 27. P-I New bone area OSPOL 46.41 35.83 All threads 47.25 36.41 Top 3 threads
  28. 28. The fact that the P-I surface presented higher new bone formation within the implant chamber may be explained by that the slightly, but significantly, higher microtopography and the presence of the homogeneous nanotopography had positive effects on the bone.
  29. 29. It can be said that both chemical and topographical modifications are of great importance for osseointegration; however, their biologic effects may be dependent on numerous factors.
  30. 30. X 200k The study has no possibility to investigate the effect of nanofeatures, both surfaces had nanostructures, PI more densely distributed but if those contributed to the result or not we cannot say from the used study design.
  31. 31. Thank you

×