Open Access, Peer-reviewed, Quarterly
pISSN 0301-2875
eISSN 2005-3789
    J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2018 Jan;56(1):1-7. Korean.
    Published online Jan 29, 2018.
    https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2018.56.1.1
    © 2018 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
    Original Article

    Comparison of removal torque of saline-soaking RBM implants and RBM implants in rabbit tibias

    Jae-Uk Kwon and Sung-Am Cho
      • Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
    • Corresponding Author: Sung-Am Cho. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, #2175 Dalgubeoldae-ro, Jung-gu, Dae-gu 41904, Republic of Korea. +82 (0)53 600 7672: Email: sungamcho@gamil.com
    Received July 26, 2017; Revised September 14, 2017; Accepted December 14, 2017.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of the titanium implant soaked in saline after RBM surface treatment on the initial osseointegration by comparing the removal torque and the surface analysis compared to the titanium implant with only RBM surface treatment.

    Materials and methods

    The control group was RBM surface treated implants (RBM), and the test group was implants soaked in saline for 2 weeks after RBM surface treatment (RBM+Sal). The control and test group implants were placed in the left and right tibiae of 10 rabbits, respectively, and at the same time, the insertion torque (ITQ) was measured. After 10 days, the removal torque (RTQ) was measured by exposing the implant site. FE-SEM, EDS, Surface roughness and Raman spectroscopy were performed for the surface analysis of the new implant specimens used in the experiments.

    Results

    There was no significant difference in insertion torque and removal torque between RBM surface treated titanium implants and saline-soaked titanium implants after RBM surface treatment.

    Conclusion

    Saline soaking after RBM surface treatment of titanium implants did not positively affect the initial osseointegration as compared to titanium implants with only RBM surface treatment.

    Keywords
    Implant; Hydroxyapatites; Sodium chloride; Rabbits

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    FE-SEM images of RBM group and RBM + Sal group. (A) RBM group (×30 magnification), (B) RBM + Sal group (×2,000 magnification), (C) RBM group (×2,000 magnification), (D) RBM + Sal group (×2,000 magnification).

    Fig. 2
    Surface roughness images. (A) RBM group, (B) RBM + Sal group.

    Fig. 3
    EDS analysis of RBM group.

    Fig. 4
    EDS analysis of RBM + Sal group.

    Fig. 5
    Raman spectroscopy analysis of RBM group and RBM + Sal group.

    Tables

    Table 1
    Mann-Whitney test between ITQ and RTQ in each group

    Table 2
    Mann-Whitney test between ITQ and RTQ between groups

    References

      1. Anil S, Anand PS, Alghamdi H, Jansen JA. Ilser TurkyilmazDental implant surface enhancement and osseointeration, implant dentistry - A rapidly evolving practice Intech; 2011:83–108.
        Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/implant-dentistry-a-rapidly-evolving-practice/dental-implant-surface-enhancement-and-osseointegration.
      1. Parithimarkalaignan S, Padmanabhan TV. Osseointegration: An Update. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:2–6.
      1. Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Van't Hof MA, Jansen JA, Creugers NH. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2006;85:496–500.
      1. Cooper LF. A role for surface topography in creating and maintaining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:522–534.
      1. Dario M, Nicola M. Surface treatments for titanium implants. Int J Clin Dent 2015;8:139–149.
      1. de Jonge LT, Leeuwenburgh SC, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Organic-inorganic surface modifications for titanium implant surfaces. Pharm Res 2008;25:2357–2369.
      1. Coelho PG, Marin C, Granato R, Giro G, Suzuki M, Bonfante EA. Biomechanical and histologic evaluation of non-washed resorbable blasting media and alumina-blasted/acid-etched surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:132–135.
      1. Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, Schenk RK, Denzer AJ, Cochran DL, Hoffmann B, Lussi A, Steinemann SG. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res 2004;83:529–533.
      1. Zhao G, Schwartz Z, Wieland M, Rupp F, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Cochran DL, Boyan BD. High surface energy enhances cell response to titanium substrate microstructure. J Biomed Mater Res A 2005;74:49–58.
      1. Carlsson L, Rötlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T. Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:21–24.
      1. Schwarz F, Wieland M, Schwartz Z, Zhao G, Rupp F, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Schedle A, Broggini N, Bornstein MM, Buser D, Ferguson SJ, Becker J, Boyan BD, Cochran DL. Potential of chemically modified hydrophilic surface characteristics to support tissue integration of titanium dental implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;88:544–557.
      1. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Eichler M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Wetting behavior of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1256–1266.
      1. Lee HJ, Yeo IS, Kwon TK. Removal torque analysis of chemically modified hydrophilic and anodically oxidized titanium implants with constant angular velocity for early bone response in rabbit tibia. Tissue Eng Regen Med 2013;10:252–259.
      1. Fuming H, Guoli Y, Xiaoxiang W, Shifang Z. The removal torque of titanium implant inserted in rabbit femur coated with biomimetic deposited Ca-P coating. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35:754–765.
      1. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Eriksson A, Lindström J. The preformed autologous bone graft. An experimental study in the rabbit. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1978;12:215–223.
      1. Sanz-Sánchez I, Sanz-Martín I, Figuero E, Sanz M. Clinical efficacy of immediate implant loading protocols compared to conventional loading depending on the type of the restoration: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:964–982.
      1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Maghaireh H, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(3):CD003878
      1. Webb K, Hlady V, Tresco PA. Relative importance of surface wettability and charged functional groups on NIH 3T3 fibroblast attachment, spreading, and cytoskeletal organization. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;41:422–430.
      1. Le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater 2007;23:844–854.
      1. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. The impact of oral implants -past and future, 1966-2042. J Can Dent Assoc 2005;71:327.
      1. Hansson S, Norton M. The relation between surface roughness and interfacial shear strength for bone-anchored implants. A mathematical model. J Biomech 1999;32:829–836.
      1. Brett PM, Harle J, Salih V, Mihoc R, Olsen I, Jones FH, Tonetti M. Roughness response genes in osteoblasts. Bone 2004;35:124–133.
      1. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Albrektsson T. Oxidized titanium screws coated with calcium ions and their performance in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:625–634.
    MeSH Terms
    Hydroxyapatites
    Osseointegration
    Rabbits
    Sodium Chloride
    Spectrum Analysis, Raman
    Tibia*
    Titanium
    Torque*
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 5

    Tables
    slide
    slide

    1 / 2

    PERMALINK