Histomorphometric evaluation of a dual acid‐etched vs. a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid‐etched implant surface. An experimental study in dogs

Objective The aim of this preclinical in vivo study was to compare histologically and histomorphometrically osseointegration of dual acid‐etched vs. hydrophilic implants. Material and methods Two pairs of implants (Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil), with same macrogeometry but different surface technology...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2017-05, Vol.28 (5), p.551-557
Main Authors: Jesus, Rainde Naiara Rezende, Stavropoulos, Andreas, Oliveira, Maiolino Thomaz Fonseca, Soares, Priscilla Barbosa Ferreira, Moura, Camilla Christian Gomes, Zanetta‐Barbosa, Darceny
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acid Etching, Dental - methods
Animals
Bone density
Bone growth
Bone implants
Bone-Implant Interface - pathology
bone-to-implant contact
Contact
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods
Dental Implants
Dentistry
Dogs
Etching
Evaluation
implant surfaces
In vivo methods and tests
Lamellar bone
Male
oral implants
Osseointegration
Osteogenesis
Saline solutions
Sulfuric acid
Surgical implants
Tibia
Ultrasonic testing
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective The aim of this preclinical in vivo study was to compare histologically and histomorphometrically osseointegration of dual acid‐etched vs. hydrophilic implants. Material and methods Two pairs of implants (Neodent, Curitiba, Brazil), with same macrogeometry but different surface technology (i) dual acid‐etched surface (SAE) treatment with hydrochloric and sulfuric acid followed by microwave treatment and insertion in isotonic saline solution to increase hydrophilicity (SAE‐HD) (test, n = 12); (ii) dual SAE (control, n = 12) were installed bilaterally in the proximal tibia of six beagle dogs. Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation was performed after 2 and 4 weeks in vivo, on non‐decalcified sections. Percentages of bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) and bone density (BD) were estimated and tested for significant differences with the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test for paired samples (P 
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.12833