The Influence of implant geometry and surface composition on bone response

Authors

  • Abdullah AlFarraj Aldosari,

    1. Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    2. Dental Implant and Osseointegration Research Chair (DIORC), College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Sukumaran Anil,

    1. Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    2. Dental Implant and Osseointegration Research Chair (DIORC), College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mohammed Alasqah,

    1. Department of Periodontology, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Khalid A. Al Wazzan,

    1. Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    2. Dental Implant and Osseointegration Research Chair (DIORC), College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Samer A. Al Jetaily,

    1. Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    2. Dental Implant and Osseointegration Research Chair (DIORC), College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • John A. Jansen

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Biomaterials, Radboud University, Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    2. Dental Implant and Osseointegration Research Chair (DIORC), College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    • Corresponding author:

      John A. Jansen, DDS, PhD

      Department of Biomaterials, Dentistry 309

      Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre

      PO Box 9101

      6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands

      Tel.: +31 24 3614920

      Fax: +31 24 3614657

      e-mail: j.jansen@dent.umcn.nl

    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Objectives

The implant design and surface modification are independent conditions that can alter the implant bone response. The objective of this study is to compare the bone response to roughened tapered and cylindrical screw–type implants with and without hydroxyapatite (HA) surface coating in the femoral trabecular bone of rabbits.

Material and method

Thirty-two implants (8 × 3.5 mm) consisting of four different types (eight implants in each group), that is, tapered implants, cylindrical implants, HA-coated tapered implants, and HA-coated cylindrical implants were installed in the femoral condyle of 16 rabbits. After 8 weeks of healing, the femoral condyles were retrieved and studied histologically. The bone-to-implant contact percentage was assessed and analyzed statistically.

Results

The histomorphometric analysis revealed that the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) values seemed to be higher for HA-coated tapered implants (65.62 ± 13.02) followed by cylindrical non-coated implants. All four types of implants showed wide distribution of BIC with no statistical significance between different types of implants.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that under the current experimental conditions, implant design and surface composition had little effect on the bone-to-implant interface.

Ancillary