Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2018-03-23, 14:38:53 | version 1.38.0
22 Dental Tribune Middle East & Africa Edition | July - August 2013IMPLANT TRIBUNE Captions 1. Implant success rate is the weighted average of all published human studies on BioHorizons implants. These studies are available for review in this document and BioHorizons do- cument number ML0130. 2. Human Histologic Evidence of a Connective Tissue Attachment to a Dental Implant. M Nevins, ML Nevins, M Camelo, JL Boyesen, DM Kim. In- ternational Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry. Vol. 28, No. 2, 2008. 3. The Effects of Laser Microtextured Collars Upon Crestal Bone Levels of Dental Implants. S Weiner, J Simon, DS Ehrenberg, B Zweig, JL Ricci. Im- plant Dentistry, Volume 17, Number 2, 2008. p. 217-228. 4. Clinical Evaluation of Laser Mi- crotexturing for Soft Tissue and Bone Attachment to Dental Implants. GE Pecora, R Ceccarelli, M Bonelli, H Ale- xander, JL Ricci. Implant Dent. 2009 Feb;18(1):57-66. 5. Radiographic Analysis of Crestal Bone Levels on Laser-Lok® Collar Dental Implants. C Shapoff, B Lahey,P Wasserlauf, D Kim. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:129-137. 6. The effects of laser microtexturing of the dental implant collar on crestal bone levels and peri-implant health. S Botos, H Yousef, B Zweig, R Flinton and S Weiner. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:492-498. 7. Marginal Tissue Response to Diffe- rent Implant Neck Design. HEK Bae, MK Chung, IH Cha, DH Han. J Ko- rean Acad Prosthodont. 2008, Vol. 46, No. 6. 8. Bone Response to Laser Microtex- tured Surfaces. JL Ricci, J Charvet, SR Frenkel, R Change, P Nadkar- ni, J Turner and H Alexander. Bone Engineering (editor: JE Davies). Chapter 25. Published by Em2 Inc., Toronto,Canada. 2000. 9. Osseointegration on metallic im- plant surfaces: effects of microgeome- try and growth factor treatment. SR Frankel, J Simon, H Alexander, M Dennis, JL Ricci. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;63(6): 706-13. 10. Surface Topography Modulates Osteoblast Morphology. BD Boyan, Z Schwartz. Bone Engineering (editor: JE Davies). Chapter 21. Published by Em2 Inc., Toronto, Canada. 2000. 11. Effects of titanium surface topogra- phy on bone integration: a systematic review. A Wennerberg, T Albrektsson. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Sep;20 Suppl 4:172-84. 12. Histologic Evidence of a Connecti- ve Tissue Attachment to Laser Microg- rooved Abutments: A Canine Study. M Nevins, DM Kim, SH Jun, K Guze, P Schupbach, ML Nevins. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry. Vol. 30, No. 3, 2010. L aser-Lok overview Laser-Lok microchannels is a proprietary dental implant surface treatment developed from over 20 years of research ini- tiated to create the optimal implant surface. Through this research, the unique Laser-Lok surface has been shown to elicit a biologic response that includes the inhibition of epithe- lial downgrowth and the attachment of connective tissue (unlike Sharpey fibers).2,3 This physical attachment produces a biologic seal around the implant that protects and maintains crestal bone health. The Laser-Lok phenomenon has been shown in post-market studies to be more ef- fective than other implant designs in reducing bone loss.4,5,6,7 Unique surface characteristics Laser-Lok microchannels is a series of cell-sized circumferential channels that are precisely created using laser ablation technology. This technology produces extremely consistent micro- channels that are optimally sized to attach and organize both osteoblasts and fibroblasts.8,9 The Laser-Lok mi- crostructure also includes a repeating nanostructure that maximizes surface area and enables cell pseudopodia and collagen microfibrils to interdigi- tate with the Laser-Lok surface. Different than other surface treat- ments Virtually all dental implant surfaces on the market are grit-blasted and/ or acid-etched. These manufacturing methods create random surfaces that vary from point to point on the implant and alter cell reaction de- pending on where each cell comes in contact with the surface.10 While random surfaces have shown higher osseointegration than machined sur- faces11, only the Laser-Lok surface has been shown using light micro- scopy, polarized light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy to also be effective for soft tissue attach- ment.2,12 The clinical advantage The Laser-Lok surface has been shown in several studies to offer a clinical advantage over other im- plant designs. In a prospective, con- trolled multi-center study, Laser- Lok implants, when placed alongside identical implants with a traditional surface, were shown at 37 months post-op to reduce bone loss by 70% (or 1.35mm).4 In a retrospective, private practice study, Laser-Lok implants placed in a variety of site conditions and followed up to 3 years minimized bone loss to 0.46mm.5 In a prospective, University-based over- denture study, Laser-Lok implants reduced bone loss by 63% versus No- belReplace™ Select.6 Laser-Lok Technology By BioHorizons ________________________ Polarized lights show the connective tissue is functionally oriented.2 Human histology shows the apical extent of the junctional epithelium below which there is a supracrestal connective tissue attachment to the Laser-Lok surface.2 Colorized SEM of a dental implant harvested at 6 months post-op shows the connective tissue is physically attached and interdigitated with the Laser-Lok surface. BioHorizons Greg Bryant 205-986-7894 (USA) Director, Communication & Education Contact Information