File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleEarly osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans
 
AuthorsLang, NP2 4
Salvi, GE4
HuynhBa, G4
Ivanovski, S3
Donos, N1
Bosshardt, DD4
 
KeywordsBone-to-implant contact
Human
Hydrophilic
Hydrophobic
Implant surfaces
Oral implants
Osseointegration
 
Issue Date2011
 
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
CitationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 4, p. 349-356 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x
 
AbstractObjective: To evaluate the rate and degree of osseointegration at chemically modified moderately rough, hydrophilic (SLActive) and moderately rough, hydrophobic (SLA) implant surfaces during early phases of healing in a human model. Material and methods: The devices used for this study of early healing were 4mm long and 2.8mm in diameter and had either an SLActive chemically modified or a moderately rough SLA surface configuration. These devices were surgically installed into the retro-molar area of 49 human volunteers and retrieved after 7, 14, 28 and 42 days of submerged healing. A 5.2-mm-long specially designed trephine with a 4.9mm inside diameter, allowing the circumferential sampling of 1mm tissue together with the device was applied. Histologic ground sections were prepared and histometric analyses of the tissue components (i.e. old bone, new bone, bone debris and soft tissue) in contact with the device surfaces were performed. Results: All device sites healed uneventfully. All device surfaces were partially coated with bone debris. A significant fraction of this bone matrix coating became increasingly covered with newly formed bone. The process of new bone formation started already during the first week in the trabecular regions and increased gradually up to 42 days. The percentage of direct contact between newly formed bone and the device (bone-to-implant contact) after 2 and 4 weeks was more pronounced adjacent to the SLActive than to the SLA surface (14.8% vs. 12.2% and 48.3% vs. 32.4%, respectively), but after 42 days, these differences were no longer evident (61.6% vs. 61.5%). Conclusion: While healing showed similar characteristics with bone resorptive and appositional events for both SLActive and SLA surfaces between 7 and 42 days, the degree of osseointegration after 2 and 4 weeks was superior for the SLActive compared with the SLA surface. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
ISSN0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000288214300001
Funding AgencyGrant Number
ITI Foundation for the Promotion of Implantology (ITI Basel, Switzerland)371/04
Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health122/07
Funding Information:

This study has been supported by a grant from the ITI Foundation for the Promotion of Implantology (ITI Basel, Switzerland) (No. 371/04). Further support came from the Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health (No. 122/07). The excellent and competent laboratory work of Mrs. Monika Aeberhard, Ms. Silvia Owusu and Mr. David Reist as well as Mr. Walter Burgin for performing the statistical analysis is highly appreciated. The organizational help of the clinical team of the former Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics of the University of Berne is duly acknowledged. Last, but not least, a great acknowledgement belongs to the volunteer students and employees of the University of Berne School of Dental Medicine for having participated in the study.

 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorLang, NP
 
dc.contributor.authorSalvi, GE
 
dc.contributor.authorHuynhBa, G
 
dc.contributor.authorIvanovski, S
 
dc.contributor.authorDonos, N
 
dc.contributor.authorBosshardt, DD
 
dc.date.accessioned2011-06-17T09:18:02Z
 
dc.date.available2011-06-17T09:18:02Z
 
dc.date.issued2011
 
dc.description.abstractObjective: To evaluate the rate and degree of osseointegration at chemically modified moderately rough, hydrophilic (SLActive) and moderately rough, hydrophobic (SLA) implant surfaces during early phases of healing in a human model. Material and methods: The devices used for this study of early healing were 4mm long and 2.8mm in diameter and had either an SLActive chemically modified or a moderately rough SLA surface configuration. These devices were surgically installed into the retro-molar area of 49 human volunteers and retrieved after 7, 14, 28 and 42 days of submerged healing. A 5.2-mm-long specially designed trephine with a 4.9mm inside diameter, allowing the circumferential sampling of 1mm tissue together with the device was applied. Histologic ground sections were prepared and histometric analyses of the tissue components (i.e. old bone, new bone, bone debris and soft tissue) in contact with the device surfaces were performed. Results: All device sites healed uneventfully. All device surfaces were partially coated with bone debris. A significant fraction of this bone matrix coating became increasingly covered with newly formed bone. The process of new bone formation started already during the first week in the trabecular regions and increased gradually up to 42 days. The percentage of direct contact between newly formed bone and the device (bone-to-implant contact) after 2 and 4 weeks was more pronounced adjacent to the SLActive than to the SLA surface (14.8% vs. 12.2% and 48.3% vs. 32.4%, respectively), but after 42 days, these differences were no longer evident (61.6% vs. 61.5%). Conclusion: While healing showed similar characteristics with bone resorptive and appositional events for both SLActive and SLA surfaces between 7 and 42 days, the degree of osseointegration after 2 and 4 weeks was superior for the SLActive compared with the SLA surface. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 4, p. 349-356 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x
 
dc.identifier.citeulike8993414
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x
 
dc.identifier.epage356
 
dc.identifier.hkuros185680
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000288214300001
Funding AgencyGrant Number
ITI Foundation for the Promotion of Implantology (ITI Basel, Switzerland)371/04
Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health122/07
Funding Information:

This study has been supported by a grant from the ITI Foundation for the Promotion of Implantology (ITI Basel, Switzerland) (No. 371/04). Further support came from the Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health (No. 122/07). The excellent and competent laboratory work of Mrs. Monika Aeberhard, Ms. Silvia Owusu and Mr. David Reist as well as Mr. Walter Burgin for performing the statistical analysis is highly appreciated. The organizational help of the clinical team of the former Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics of the University of Berne is duly acknowledged. Last, but not least, a great acknowledgement belongs to the volunteer students and employees of the University of Berne School of Dental Medicine for having participated in the study.

 
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
dc.identifier.issue4
 
dc.identifier.openurl
 
dc.identifier.pmid21561476
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-79952522844
 
dc.identifier.spage349
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/134336
 
dc.identifier.volume22
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com
 
dc.subjectBone-to-implant contact
 
dc.subjectHuman
 
dc.subjectHydrophilic
 
dc.subjectHydrophobic
 
dc.subjectImplant surfaces
 
dc.subjectOral implants
 
dc.subjectOsseointegration
 
dc.titleEarly osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Lang, NP</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Salvi, GE</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>HuynhBa, G</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Ivanovski, S</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Donos, N</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Bosshardt, DD</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2011-06-17T09:18:02Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2011-06-17T09:18:02Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2011</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 4, p. 349-356</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0905-7161</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/134336</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>Objective: To evaluate the rate and degree of osseointegration at chemically modified moderately rough, hydrophilic (SLActive) and moderately rough, hydrophobic (SLA) implant surfaces during early phases of healing in a human model. Material and methods: The devices used for this study of early healing were 4mm long and 2.8mm in diameter and had either an SLActive chemically modified or a moderately rough SLA surface configuration. These devices were surgically installed into the retro-molar area of 49 human volunteers and retrieved after 7, 14, 28 and 42 days of submerged healing. A 5.2-mm-long specially designed trephine with a 4.9mm inside diameter, allowing the circumferential sampling of 1mm tissue together with the device was applied. Histologic ground sections were prepared and histometric analyses of the tissue components (i.e. old bone, new bone, bone debris and soft tissue) in contact with the device surfaces were performed. Results: All device sites healed uneventfully. All device surfaces were partially coated with bone debris. A significant fraction of this bone matrix coating became increasingly covered with newly formed bone. The process of new bone formation started already during the first week in the trabecular regions and increased gradually up to 42 days. The percentage of direct contact between newly formed bone and the device (bone-to-implant contact) after 2 and 4 weeks was more pronounced adjacent to the SLActive than to the SLA surface (14.8% vs. 12.2% and 48.3% vs. 32.4%, respectively), but after 42 days, these differences were no longer evident (61.6% vs. 61.5%). Conclusion: While healing showed similar characteristics with bone resorptive and appositional events for both SLActive and SLA surfaces between 7 and 42 days, the degree of osseointegration after 2 and 4 weeks was superior for the SLActive compared with the SLA surface. &#169; 2011 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Clinical Oral Implants Research</relation.ispartof>
<rights>The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com</rights>
<subject>Bone-to-implant contact</subject>
<subject>Human</subject>
<subject>Hydrophilic</subject>
<subject>Hydrophobic</subject>
<subject>Implant surfaces</subject>
<subject>Oral implants</subject>
<subject>Osseointegration</subject>
<title>Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans</title>
<type>Article</type>
<identifier.openurl>http://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&amp;issn=0905-7161&amp;volume=22&amp;issue=4&amp;spage=349&amp;epage=356&amp;date=2011&amp;atitle=Early+osseointegration+to+hydrophilic+and+hydrophobic+implant+surfaces+in+humans</identifier.openurl>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>21561476</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-79952522844</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>185680</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-79952522844&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>22</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>4</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>349</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>356</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000288214300001</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
<identifier.citeulike>8993414</identifier.citeulike>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. UCL Eastman Dental Institute
  2. Prince Philip Dental Hospital
  3. Griffith University
  4. Universität Bern