COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN LASER SINTERED IMPLANT AND ACID ETCHED IMPLANT SEATED IN THE MAXILLARY PREMOLAR AREA | ||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||
| Article 9, Volume 40, Issue 2, December 2015, Pages 186-191 PDF (946.16 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2015.59151 | ||
| Authors | ||
| A Halwag* ; N El Prince* ; R Eldibany* | ||
| B.D.S. Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University | ||
| Abstract | ||
| laser fabrication (DLF) is a new technology by which we can produce a dental implant with complex geometry that allows better osseointegration, through enhancing the differentiation of stem cells into osteoblasts and endotheliocytes leading to bone formation around the implant in a better and quicker way. Objectives: to compare osseointegration between laser sintered implants and acid etched implants. Materials and methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on twenty patients having edentulous spaces in the maxillary premolar area. They were divided equally into two groups, group A and group B, ten patients in each group. Laser sintered implants were placed in the edentulous spaces in group A patients, while conventional implants were placed in group B patients. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were carried out after 4, 6 and 9 months for both groups. Results: : Regarding the plaque index the scores of group A were found to be insignificantly lower than those of group B at 4 and 6 months and significantly lower at 9 months. The mean probing depth values in group A were significantly lower than group B at 4 and 6 months and insignificantly lower at 9 months. While, the implant mobility score was 0 for both groups. Regarding the mean marginal bone defect, values for group A were insignificantly lower than group B at 4 months, while significantly lower at 6 and 9 months. Conclusion: The use of both laser sintered and acid etched implants for replacement of maxillary premolars have significant success | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Laser sintered; Acid etched; Dental implants; osseointegration | ||
| References | ||
|
1. Monjo M, Petzold C, Ramis J, Lyngstadaas S, Ellingsen J. In vitro osteogenic properties of two dental implant surfaces. Int J Biomater 2012; 14:112- 8.
2. Mangano C, Piattelli A, Mangano F, Perrotti V, Iezzi G. Immediate loading of modified acid etched dental implantsin post-extraction sockets: a histological and histomorphometrical comparative study in nonhuman primate papio ursinus. Implant Dent 2009; 18: 142–50.
3. Sesma N, Pannuti C, Cardaropoli G. Retrospective clinical study of 988 dual acid-etched implants placed in grafted and native bone for single-tooth replacement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27:1243–8.
4. Choi J, Lee J, Jang J, Yeo I. Comparison between bioactive fluoride modified and bioinert anodically oxidized implant surfaces in early bone response using rabbit tibia model. Implant Dent 2012; 21: 124–8.
5. Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A. 10-year follow-up of immediately loaded implants with Ti Unite porous anodized surface. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14: 828–38.
6. Mendes V, Moineddin R, Davies J. The effect of discrete calcium phosphate nanocrystals on bone-bonding to titanium surfaces. Biomaterials 2007; 28: 4748–55.
7. Elias C, Gravina P, Silva Filho C, Nascente P. Preparation of bioactive titanium surfaces via fluoride and fibronectin retention. Int J Biomater 2012; 29:179-87.
8. Rupp F, Gittens RL, Scheideler L. A review on the wettability of dental implant surfaces theoretical and experimental aspects. Acta Biomaterialia 2014; 10: 2894–906.
9. Larsson W, Thomsen P, Aronsson B, Rodahl M, Lausmaa J, Kasemo B, et al. Bone response to surface-modified titanium implants: studies on the early tissue response to implants with different surface characteristics. Int J Biomater 2013; 41:482- 92.
10. Mangano C, Perrotti V, Raspanti M, Mangano F, Luongo G, Piattelli A, et al. Human dental implants with a sandblasted, acid-etched surface retrieved after 5 and 10 years: a light and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of two cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013; 28: 917–20.
11. Mangano C, Mangano F, Shibli J , Ricci M , Sammons R, Figliuzzi M . Morse taper connection implants supporting “planned” maxillary and mandibular bar-retained overdentures: a 5-year prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 1117–24.
12. Mullen L, Stamp R, Brooks W, Jones E, Sutcliffe C. Selective laser melting: a regular unit cell approach for the manufacture of porous, titanium, bone in-growth constructs, suitable for orthopedic applications. J Biomed Mater Res B App Biomater 2009; 89: 325–34.
13. Stamp R, Fox P, O’Neill W, Jones E, Sutcliffe C. The development of a scanning strategy for the manufacture of porous biomaterials by selective laser melting. J Mater Science Mater Med 2009; 20:1839–48.
14. Hollander D, Von Walter M, Wirtz T, Sellei R, SchmidtRohlfing B, Paar O, et al. Structural, mechanical and in vitro characterization of individually structuredTi-6Al-4V produced by direct laser forming. Biomaterials, 2006; 27: 955–63.
15. Mangano C, Raspanti M, Traini T, Piattelli A, Sammons R. Stereo imaging and cytocompatibility of a model dental implant surface formed by direct laser fabrication. J Biomed Mater Res 2009; 88: 823–31. 16. Dabrowski B, Swieszkowski W, Godlinski D, Kurzydlowski K. Highly porous titanium scaffolds for orthopaedic applications. J Biomed Mater Res B, Appl Biomater 2010; 95: 53–61.
17. Glavind L, Loe H. Errors in clinical assessment of periodontal destruction. J periodontol 1967; 2:180-86.
18. Silness S, Loe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. Correlation between oral hygene and periodontal condition. Acta Odont Scand 1964; 22: 121-35.
19. Mckinney RV, Koth DL. The single-crystal sapphire endosteal dental implant: material characteristics and 18- month experimental animal trials. J. Prosthet Dent 1982; 47(1): 69-84.
20. Gotfredsen K, Wennerberg A, Johansson C, Skovgaard LT, Hjørting-Hansen E. Anchorage of Ti02-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res 1995; 29: 1223–31.
21. Roos J, Sennerby L, Lekholm U, Jemt T, Grondahl K, Albrektsson T. A qualitative and quantitative method for evaluating implant success: a 5-year retrospective analysis of the Branemark implant. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12: 504–14.
22. Ricci G1, Aimetti M, Stablum W, Guasti A. Crestal bone resorption 5 years after implant loading: clinical and radiologic results with a 2-stage implant system. . Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19(4): 597-602
23. Saturnino C, Viviane C, Thiago A, Benito A, Cristina D, Marcelo F, André G. Crestal Bone Resorption: An Assessment Cross-Section. Oral Health Dent Manag 2014; 13 (4): 967-70.
24. Lazzara RJ, Porter SS. Platform switching: A new concept in implant dentistry for controlling post restorative crestal bone levels. Int J Perio Rest Dent. 2006; 26: 9-17.
25. Faeda R, Tavares H, Sartori R, Guastaldi A, Marcantonio E. Evaluation of titanium implants with surface modification by laser beam. Biomechanical study in rabbit tibias. Braz Oral Res 2009; 23(2):137-43.
26. Kang N, Li L, Cho S. Comparison of removal torques between laser treated and SLA-treated implant surfaces in rabbit tibiae. J Adv Prosthod 2014; 6(4): 302-8.
27. Mangano C, De Rosa A, Desiderio V, d'Aquino R, Piattelli A, de Francesco F, et al. The osteoblastic differentiation of dental pulp stem cells and bone formation on different titanium surface textures. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 3543–51.
28. Rong M, Zhou L, Gou Z, Zhu A, Zhou D. The early osseointegration of the laser-treated and acid-etched dental implants surface: an experimental study in rabbits. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2009; 20: 1721-8.
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 113 PDF Download: 535 |
||
