A Human Histologic Analysis of Osseotite and Machined Surfaces Using Implants with 2 Opposing Surfaces

A human histologic study was conducted to compare the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) at 6 months for Osseotite and machined, commercially pure titanium implant surfaces. To eliminate potential influences caused by differences in bone density at different intraoral locations, 2 mm 3 5 mm, threaded, 2-surfaced titanium implants were manufactured; 1 side received the Osseotite surface modification and the opposite side maintained a machined surface. In each of 11 patients, 1 test implant was placed in the posterior maxilla (Types III and IV bone) during conventional dental implant surgery. Following 6 months of unloaded healing, the conventional implants were uncovered, and the test implants and surrounding hard tissue were removed. Histologic analysis indicated that at 6 months of unloaded healing, the mean BIC value for the Osseotite surfaces (72.96% ± 25.13%) was statistically significantly higher (P 0.05) than the mean BIC value for the machined surfaces (33.98% ± 31.04%). When the BIC values for the machined and Osseotite surface pairs were ranked from high to low based on the machined BIC value range of 93% to 0%, the upper 50th percentile (20 surface pairs) mean BIC value was 86.1% ± 16.7% for the Osseotite surfaces and 60.1% ± 18.3% for the machined surfaces. The lower 50th percentile (19 surface pairs) mean BIC value was 59.1% ± 25.3% for the Osseotite surfaces and 6.5% ± 10.8% for the machined surfaces. Differences between mean BIC values for the 2 surfaces in both the upper and lower 50th percentiles were statistically significant (P 0.05). The results of this study indicate that in the poorer quality bone typically found in the posterior maxilla, a statistically significantly higher percentage of bone contacts Osseotite surfaces when compared to opposing machined surfaces on the same implant.