Vertical osteoconductivity and early bone formation of titanium-zirconium and titanium implants in a subperiosteal rabbit animal model
Vertical osteoconductivity and early bone formation of titanium-zirconium and titanium implants in a subperiosteal rabbit animal model
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/clr.12175
复制
发表时间：
2014-07-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Al-Nawas, Bilal
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kaemmerer, Peer W.;Palarie, Victor;Al-Nawas, Bilal
目的：本试点研究的目的是评估周围的钛锆（TiZr）种植体的垂直骨传导和骨整合动力学相比，钛（Ti）implants.Materials和方法：在一个分裂腿设计，12钛锆-SLActive和12钛-SLActive种植体插入3毫米以上的骨水平在12只兔子的胫骨近端。重新定位全骨膜瓣以覆盖该部位。在10、20和30天后获得标本（每组n = 4）。组织形态学测量包括线性骨填充百分比（PLF; %）、新边缘垂直骨高度（VBH; mm）和垂直骨-种植体接触（vBIC; %）。结果：10天后，TiZr组的平均PLF为7.7%（标准差（SD）：5.3），Ti组为17.6%（SD：8.3）。TiZr和Ti的平均VBH分别为0.35 mm（SD：0.15）和0.78 mm（SD：0.4）; TiZr和Ti样本的平均vBIC分别为24.4%（SD：41）和53%（SD：28.9）。所有参数的差异均具有显著性（PLF：P = 0.021; VBH：P = 0.009; vBIC：P = 0.011）。20天后，TIZr和Ti植入物的平均PLF分别为44.3%（SD：26.3）和46.2%（SD：21.3）。TiZr显示钛样本的平均VBH为1.73 mm（SD：1）和1.8 mm（SD：0.6）。TiZr和Ti的平均vBIC值分别为48.3%（SD：23.7）和68.7%（SD：35.5）（PLF：P = 0.78; VBH：P = 0.58; vBIC：P = 0.47）。在30天时，TiZr和Ti样本的平均PLF值分别为23.7%（SD：3.8）和28.9%（SD：21.7）; TiZr样本中VBH的平均值分别为0.65 mm（SD：0.39）和1.7 mm（SD：1.1）。最后，TiZr和Ti样本的平均vBIC分别为28.3%（SD：19.3）和54.4%（SD：26.5）（PLF：P = 0.1; VBH：P = 0.088; vBIC：P = 0.089）。结论：与Ti对应物相比，TiZr植入物在检查的最早时间点的垂直骨传导性显著延迟。对于后面的点，TiZr以及钛植入物在该动物模型中表现出相当的值。因此，同样预处理的TiZr牙科植入物的长期成骨表面性质与体内钛植入物的成骨表面性质相似。
Objectives: The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the vertical osteoconductive and osteointegrative dynamics around titanium-zirconium (TiZr) implants compared to titanium (Ti) implants.Materials and methods: In a split-leg design, 12 TiZr-SLActive and 12 Ti-SLActive implants were inserted 3 mm above bone level in the proximal tibia of 12 rabbits. Full periosteal flaps were repositioned to cover the site. Specimens were obtained after 10, 20 and 30 days (each n = 4 per group). Histomorphometric measurements included percentage of linear bone fill (PLF; %), new marginal vertical bone height (VBH; mm) and vertical bone-to-implant contact (vBIC; %). Statistical analysis was performed with the nonparametric F1_LD_F1 model to compare the two groups at the different time points.Results: After 10 days, mean PLF was 7.7% (standard deviation (SD): 5.3) for TiZr and 17.6 (SD: 8.3) for Ti. Mean VBH was 0.35 mm (SD: 0.15) and 0.78 mm (SD: 0.4) for TiZr and Ti, respectively; mean vBIC was 24.4% (SD: 41) for TiZr and 53% (SD: 28.9) for Ti samples. The differences were significant for all parameters (PLF: P = 0.021; VBH: P = 0.009; vBIC: P = 0.011). After 20 days, mean PLF was 44.3% (SD: 26.3) for TIZr and 46.2% (SD: 21.3) for Ti implants. TiZr showed a mean VBH of 1.73 mm (SD: 1) and 1.8 mm (SD: 0.6) for Ti samples. Mean vBIC had values of 48.3% (SD: 23.7) and 68.7% (SD: 35.5) for TiZr and Ti, respectively (PLF: P = 0.78; VBH: P = 0.58; vBIC: P = 0.47). At the point of 30 days, mean PLF values were 23.7% (SD: 3.8) for TiZr and 28.9% (SD: 21.7) for Ti samples; mean for VBH in TiZr samples was 0.65 mm (SD: 0.39) and 1.7 mm (SD: 1.1) for Ti ones. Finally, mean vBIC was 28.3% (SD: 19.3) and 54.4% (SD: 26.5) for TiZr and Ti samples, respectively (PLF: P = 0.1; VBH: P = 0.088; vBIC: P = 0.089).Conclusions: A significant delay in vertical osteoconductivity at the earliest time point under examination was seen for TiZr implants when compared to their Ti counterparts. For the later points, TiZr as well as Ti implants demonstrated comparable values in this animal model. The longterm osteogenic surface properties of equally pretreated TiZr dental implants are therefore similar to those of Ti implants in vivo.