Experimental peri-implantitis around titanium implants with a chemically modified surface with a monolayer of multi-phosphonate molecules: a preclinical in vivo investigation
- PMID: 33409690
- DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03708-4
Experimental peri-implantitis around titanium implants with a chemically modified surface with a monolayer of multi-phosphonate molecules: a preclinical in vivo investigation
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this experimental in vivo investigation was to evaluate the influence of modifying the implant surface by adding a monolayer of multi-phosphonate molecules on the development of experimental peri-implantitis.
Material and methods: Eight beagle dogs received 5 tests and 5 control implants each following a split-mouth design 3 months after premolar and molar extraction. On the most mesial implant of each side, a 3-mm buccal dehiscence was artificially created. Experimental peri-implantitis was induced by silk ligatures over a 4-month period; after ligature removal, peri-implantitis was left to progress for another 4 months without plaque control. Clinical, histological, and radiographic outcomes were evaluated.
Results: Radiographically, both implant groups showed a similar bone loss (BL) at the end of the induction and progression phases. BL measured on the histological sections of the test and control groups was 3.14 ± 0.42 mm and 3.26 ± 0.28 mm, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The remaining buccal bone to implant contact (bBIC) percentage of the test and control groups was 59.38 ± 18.62 and 47.44 ± 20.46%, respectively; the difference, however, was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Bone loss observed at dehiscent sites compared to non-dehiscent ones showed no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05).
Conclusions: Addition of a monophosphonate layer to a moderately rough implant surface did not affect development of experimental peri-implantitis.
Clinical relevance: Influence of implant surface on peri-implantitis may condition implant selection by the clinician, especially on patients with disease risk factors. In that sense, monophosphate layer implants do not show higher peri-implantitis risk than control implants.
Keywords: Animal model; Dental implants; Experimental peri-implantitis; Histology; Histometric analysis; Implant surface; Monophosphonate layer; SurfLink; Wound chamber.
Similar articles
-
Hard tissue volumetric and soft tissue contour linear changes at implants with different surface characteristics after experimentally induced peri-implantitis: an experimental in vivo investigation.Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Jun;25(6):3905-3918. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03720-8. Epub 2021 Jan 7. Clin Oral Investig. 2021. PMID: 33415377
-
Spontaneous progression of ligature induced peri-implantitis at implants with different surface roughness: an experimental study in dogs.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Oct;18(5):655-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01397.x. Epub 2007 Jun 30. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007. PMID: 17608738
-
Progression of experimental chronic peri-implantitis in dogs: clinical and radiographic evaluation.J Periodontol. 2005 Aug;76(8):1367-73. doi: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.8.1367. J Periodontol. 2005. PMID: 16101371
-
Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Apr;19(2):372-399. doi: 10.1111/cid.12457. Epub 2016 Nov 15. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017. PMID: 27860171 Review.
-
What is the influence of implant surface characteristics and/or implant material on the incidence and progression of peri-implantitis? A systematic literature review.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Oct;32 Suppl 21:203-229. doi: 10.1111/clr.13859. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021. PMID: 34642989 Review.
Cited by
-
Experimental models for peri-implant diseases: a narrative review.Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Jun 17;28(7):378. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05755-7. Clin Oral Investig. 2024. PMID: 38884808 Review.
References
-
- Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindstrom J (1981) Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 52:155–170. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678108991776 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Schroeder A, van der Zypen E, Stich H, Sutter F (1981) The reactions of bone, connective tissue, and epithelium to endosteal implants with titanium-sprayed surfaces. J Maxillofac Surg 9:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-0503(81)80007-0 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B (1996) Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11:38–45 - PubMed
-
- Vignoletti F, Johansson C, Albrektsson T, De Sanctis M, San Roman F, Sanz M (2009) Early healing of implants placed into fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the beagle dog. De novo bone formation. J Clin Periodontol 36:265–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01363.x - DOI - PubMed
-
- Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV (2005) The role of implant surface modifications, shape and material on the success of osseointegrated dental implants. A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 13:15–31 - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources