Can changes in implant macrogeometry accelerate the osseointegration process?: An in vivo experimental biomechanical and histological evaluations

• Published in: PloS one 2020-05, Vol.15 (5), p.e0233304-e0233304
• Main Authors: Gehrke, Sergio Alexandre, Aramburú, Júnior, Jaime, Pérez-Díaz, Leticia, do Prado, Tales Dias, Dedavid, Berenice Anina, Mazon, Patricia, N De Aza, Piedad
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biology and Life Sciences; Biomechanics; Bone implants; Bones; Drilling; Engineering and Technology; Evaluation; Health aspects; In vivo methods and tests; Mechanical properties; Medicine and Health Sciences; Microscopy; Orthopedic implants; Osseointegration; Physical Sciences; Physiological aspects; Quotients; Research and Analysis Methods; Retirement benefits; Stability analysis; Statistical methods; Studies; Surgical implants; Tibia; Time; Titanium; Titanium products; Transplants & implants
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233304

The propose was to compare this new implant macrogeometry with a control implant with a conventional macrogeometry. Eighty-six conical implants were divided in two groups (n = 43 per group): group control (group CON) that were used conical implants with a conventional macrogeometry and, group test (group TEST) that were used implants with the new macrogeometry. The new implant macrogeometry show several circular healing cambers between the threads, distributed in the implant body. Three implants of each group were used to scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) analysis and, other eighty samples (n = 40 per group) were inserted the tibia of ten rabbit (n = 2 per tibia), determined by randomization. The animals were sacrificed (n = 5 per time) at 3-weeks (Time 1) and at 4-weeks after the implantations (Time 2). The biomechanical evaluation proposed was the measurement of the implant stability quotient (ISQ) and the removal torque values (RTv). The microscopical analysis was a histomorphometric measurement of the bone to implant contact (%BIC) and the SEM evaluation of the bone adhered on the removed implants. The results showed that the implants of the group TEST produced a significant enhancement in the osseointegration in comparison with the group CON. The ISQ and RTv tests showed superior values for the group TEST in the both measured times (3- and 4-weeks), with significant differences (p < 0.05). More residual bone in quantity and quality was observed in the samples of the group TEST on the surface of the removed implants. Moreover, the %BIC demonstrated an important increasing for the group TEST in both times, with statistical differences (in Time 1 p = 0.0103 and in Time 2 p < 0.0003). Then, we can conclude that the alterations in the implant macrogeometry promote several benefits on the osseointegration process.