DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2952, PubMed ID (PMID): 23748299Pages 694-700, Language: EnglishWitek, Lukasz / Marin, Charles / Granato, Rodrigo / Bonfante, Estevam A. / Campos, Felipe E. B. / Gomes, Julio Bisinotto / Suzuki, Marcelo / Coelho, Paulo G.Purpose: The present study was conducted to determine whether biomechanical and histologic parameters would differ between implant surfaces blasted with bioactive ceramic resorbable media (biologic blasting) and blasted with alumina and acid-etched.
Materials and Methods: Fourteen beagle dogs were used. Eight animals received two implants of each surface per limb, and each limb provided samples that remained in vivo for 3 and 6 weeks. The other six animals received two implants of each surface in one limb, which remained in vivo for 1 week. After euthanization, half of the implants were subjected to torque-to-interface fracture; the other half of the implants were processed for nondecalcified histology to calculate bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO). Statistical analysis was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test (95% level of significance).
Results: While no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO between surfaces at all three times in vivo and for torque levels at 1 and 3 weeks, a significantly higher torque was observed for the biologic blasting group after 6 weeks in vivo. Bone morphology was similar between groups at all times.
Conclusion: A significant increase in early biomechanical fixation was observed for implants with the biologic blasting surface. However, no significant differences were observed for BIC and BAFO at any observation point.
