Osseointegration of SLActive implants in diabetic pigs.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Clinical Oral Implants Research (Impact Factor: 3.43). 11/2011; DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02380.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES: Diabetes mellitus is currently classified as a relative contraindication for implant treatment because of microangiopathies with the consequence of impaired bone regeneration and higher rates of implant failure. The study aim was to investigate peri-implant bone formation in a diabetic animal model in comparison to healthy animals and to evaluate the differences between conventional (SLA(®) ) and modified (SLActive(®) ) titanium implant surfaces on osseointegration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each six implants were placed in the calvaria of 11 diabetic and 4 healthy domestic pigs. At 30 and 90 days after implant placement, the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone density (BD) were appraised. Additionally, the expression of the bone-matrix proteins collagen type I and osteocalcin was evaluated at both points in time by using immunohistochemical staining methods. RESULTS: Overall, BIC was reduced in the diabetic group at 30 and 90 days. After 90 days, the SLActive(®) implants showed significantly higher BICs compared with the SLA(®) implants in diabetic animals. Peri-implant BD was higher in the SLActive(®) group at 30 and 90 days in healthy and diabetic animals. Collagen type I protein expression was higher using SLA(®) implants in diabetic pigs at 30 days. Values for osteocalcin expression were not consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate the negative effect of untreated diabetes mellitus on early osseointegration of dental implants. The modified SLA(®) surface (SLActive(®) ) elicited an accelerated osseointegration of dental implants, suggesting that a better prognosis for implant treatment of diabetic patients is possible.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: In order to determine whether a newly developed implant material conforms to the requirements of biocompatibility, it must undergo rigorous testing. To correctly interpret the results of studies on implant material osseointegration, it is necessary to have a sound understanding of all the testing methods. The aim of this overview is to elucidate the methods that are used for the experimental evaluation of the osseointegration of implant materials. DISCUSSION: In recent decades, there has been a constant proliferation of new materials and surface modifications in the field of dental implants. This continuous development of innovative biomaterials requires a precise and detailed evaluation in terms of biocompatibility and implant healing before clinical use. The current gold standard is in vivo animal testing on well validated animal models. However, long-term outcome studies on patients have to follow to finally validate and show patient benefit. CONCLUSION: No experimental set-up can provide answers for all possible research questions. However, a certain transferability of the results to humans might be possible if the experimental set-up is carefully chosen for the aspects and questions being investigated. To enhance the implant survival rate in the rising number of patients with chronic diseases which compromise wound healing and osseointegration, dental implant research on compromised animal models will further gain importance in future.
    Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 02/2013;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dental implant failures that occur clinically for unknown reasons could be related to undiagnosed hyperglycemia. The exact mechanisms that underlie such failures are not known, but there is general consensus that bone growth is compromised in hyperglycemia. Nevertheless, contradictory findings exist related to peri-implant bone healing in hyperglycemia. We hypothesized that hyperglycemia delays early bone healing by impeding osteoconduction, and that the compromised implant integration wrought by hyperglycemia could be abrogated by using nanotopographically complex implants. Thus, we undertook two parallel experiments: an osteotomy model; and a bone ingrowth chamber model. With the osteotomy model, we tracked temporal bone healing in femora of euglycemic and hyperglycemic rats using MicroCT analysis and histology. With the bone ingrowth chamber model, we used implant surfaces of either micro or nanotopographical complexity and measured bone-implant contact (BIC) using back scattered electron imaging in both metabolic groups. Quantitative MicroCT analyses on bone volume, trabecular number and trabecular connectivity density provided clear evidence that bone healing; both reparative trabecular bone formation and remodelling; was delayed in hyperglycemia, and the reparative bone volume changed with time between metabolic groups. Furthermore, fluorochrome labelling proved evidently less mineralized bone in hyperglycemic than euglycemic animals. An increased probability of osteoconduction was seen on nano compared to microtopographically complex surfaces independent of metabolic groups. The nanotopographically complex surfaces in hyperglycemia outperformed microtopographically complex surfaces in euglycemic animals. In conclusion, the compromised implant integration in hyperglycemia is abrogated by the addition of nanotopographic features to an underlying microtopographically complex implant surface.
    Acta biomaterialia 09/2013; · 5.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The first objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the impact of the hydrophilicity on the early phases of osseointegration. The second objective was to compare two hydrophilic implant surfaces with different geometries, surface roughness, and technologies achieving hydrophilicity. Twelve weeks after extraction, all four quadrants of nine minipigs received three dental implants, alternating between hydrophilic microrough surfaces (INICELL and SLActive) and a conventional hydrophobic microrough surface. After 5, 10, and 15 days of submerged healing, ground sections were prepared and subjected to histologic and histomorphometric analysis. The histologic analysis revealed a similar healing pattern among the hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces, with extensive bone formation occurring between day 5 and day 10. With BIC values of greater than 50% after 10 days, all examined surfaces indicated favorable osseointegration at this very early point in healing. At day 15, the mean new bone-to-implant contact (newBIC) of one hydrophilic surface (INICELL; 55.8 ± 14.4%) was slightly greater than that of the hydrophobic microrough surface (40.6 ± 20.2%). At day 10 and day 15, an overall of 21% of the implants had to be excluded from analysis due to inflammations primarily caused by surgical complications. Substantial bone apposition occurs between day 5 and day 10. The data suggest that the hydrophilic surface can provoke a slight tendency toward increased bone apposition in minipigs after 15 days. A direct comparison of two hydrophilic surfaces with varying geometries is of limited relevance.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 10/2013; · 3.43 Impact Factor