ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of experimental diabetes and metabolic control on de novo bone formation following the GBR principle under titanium dome with a hydrophobic or hydrophilic surface. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three groups of equal number of randomly allocated Wistar strain rats were created: (a) uncontrolled, streptozotocin-induced diabetes (D); (b) insulin-controlled diabetes (CD); (c) healthy (H). Each group was then further divided into two groups according to either 7 or 42 days of healing period, which received either a hydrophobic (SLA: A) or a hydrophilic (SLActive: B) dome. The undecalcified sections were evaluated by qualitative and quantitative histological analysis and the differences between means for the groups (D, CD, and H) and the type of domes (SLA and SLActive) at each of two observational periods (i.e. 7 and 42 days) were assessed by performing a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: In all experimental groups, significant de novo bone formation under the domes was observed at 42 days of healing. There was a tendency of increased new total bone (TB) formation in H and CD groups compared to D group at 42 days of healing. Also, the SLActive titanium surface showed a trend of promoting superior TB formation at the early observational period among the experimental groups, however these differences did not reach statistical significance. In regards to the bone-to-implant contact (BIC%) under the both dome treatments (SLA and SLActive), there was no statistically significant difference among the H, CD, and D groups at both 7 and 42 days. CONCLUSION: Despite of the presence of uncontrolled diabetes, substantial de novo bone formation can be achieved in titanium domes with a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic surface. The use of SLActive titanium surface may present a tendency to promote new bone formation in healthy and diabetic conditions at 7 days of healing, however the obtained data do not allow any robust conclusions.
Clinical Oral Implants Research 03/2012; · 2.51 Impact Factor