Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-01-11, 10:22:38 | version 1.38.0
Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation 78 Volume 2 | Issue 4/2016 H e a l i n g o f s m o o t h v s . r o u g h s u r f a c e i m p l a n t s a b d c Figs. 3a–d Photomicrographs of ground sections illustrating the healing after four months at the ZirTi surface. Stevenel’s blue and alizarin red stain. 100× magnification. Table 2 Mean value (standard deviation) and median (25th and 75th percentiles) of MBIC% without the outlier. (n = 5) MBIC% Turned Rough Mean (SD) 57.1 (10.5) 63.3 (5.5) Median (25th ; 75th ) 59.6 (56.8; 60.6) 64.5 (61.0; 66.5) * p < 0.05. After 12 weeks of healing, bone-to-implant con- tactwas slightlybelow60% atthe SLA(percent- age deduced from the graph in the article) and 36.8% at the turned surfaces. It has to be noted that the Sa ofthese surfaces was 2.29 ± 0.59 μm for the SLA and 0.35 ± 0.17 μm for the turned surfaces, respectively.4 In the present experiment, the roughness of the two surfaces used was different from that previouslydescribed.Infact,Sawasabout0.6μm for the Combed and about 1.4 μm for the ZirTi surfaces. This different roughness yielded diffe- rent osseointegration, namely 50.6 ± 18.3% and 56.3 ± 18.6%, in which the high standard devia- tion was mainly related to the presence of an outlier. However, in the present study, the difference inMBIC%betweenthetwosurfaceswassmaller than6%,whileinthepreviouslydiscussedstudy,4 the differencewas about 20%.This maybe part- ly related to the differences in roughness of the two surfaces, but also to the different models used. In that study, a chamber was prepared around the implant body so that onlythe pitches of the threads were in contact with the pristine bony beds. This yielded a primary bone-to- implant contact to the parent bone of about 6.3–6.5%, as measured on the day of implant placement. Bone apposition had to cover a dis- tance of 0.4 mm to reach the inner side of the chamber. It was shown that this bone apposition ontothe implant surface proceeded fasteratthe rough compared with the turned surfaces. In the present study, no modifications were applied to theimplantconfigurationsothatahigherprimary contact of the implant surface to the bone bed was expected. Infact, in anotherdog study, simi- lar implants were used and, after five days of healing, an MBIC% of about 32% was observed.7 This higher bone-to-implant contact area may have resulted in greater osseointegration at the turned implants used in the present study com- Figs. 3a & b Figs. 3c & d Table 2