Effect on osseointegration of two implant macro-designs: a histomorphometric analysis of bicortically installed implants in different topographic sites of rabbit’s tibiae

• David Soto-Peñaloza ^[1] ; Marco Caneva ^[2] ; José Viña-Almunia ^[1] ; José-Javier Martin-de-Llano ^[1] ; Berta García-Mira ^[1] ; David Peñarrocha-Oltra ^[1] ; Daniele Botticelli ^[2] ; Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago ^[1]
  1. [1] Universitat de València

     Universitat de València

     Valencia, España

     
  2. [2] ARDEC Academy, Ariminum Odontologica, Rimini, Italy
• Localización: Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal. Ed. inglesa, ISSN-e 1698-6946, Vol. 24, Nº. 4 (July), 2019
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • To evaluate the effect of two different implant macro-designs on the sequential osseointegration at bicortically installed implants in the rabbit tibia. A further aim is to compare the osseointegration at different topographic zones.

    27 New Zealand rabbits were implemented. Two implants, one for each macro-design (Ticare Inhex® or Ticare Quattro®, Mozo-Grau, Valladolid, Spain), were randomly implanted in the diaphysis or metaphysis of each tibia. The flaps were sutured to allow a submerged healing. The animals were sacrificed after 2, 4 or 8 weeks. Ground sections were prepared and analyzed.

    No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for newly formed bone in contact with the implant surface, being about 16%, 19% and 33% in both groups, after 2, 4, and 8 weeks of healing. Bone apposition was slightly higher in the diaphysis, reaching values of 36.4% in the diaphysis, and 29.3% in the metaphysis at 8 weeks of healing. It was observed that the implant position showed a statistical significance regarding BIC values at 4 and 8 weeks (p<0.05). Multivariate analysis fails to detect statistical significant differences for the interaction between implant designs and topographic site. Ticare Quattro® design had a slight better BIC values at diaphysis sites across healing stages, but without reaching a statistical significance.

    The both implant macro-designs provided similar degrees of osseointegration. Bone morphometry and density may affect bone apposition onto the implant surface. The apposition rates were slightly better in diaphysis compared to metaphysis.