Bone healing at implants with a fluoride-modified surface: an experimental study in dogs

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research 2007-04, Vol.18 (2), p.147-152
• Main Authors: Berglundh, T., Abrahamsson, I., Albouy, J.-P., Lindhe, J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Biocompatible; Biocompatible Materials; Biocompatible Materials - chemistry; Bone Marrow; Bone Marrow - pathology; Bone Matrix; Bone Matrix - pathology; Bone Remodeling; Bone Remodeling - physiology; chemistry; Coated Materials; Coated Materials, Biocompatible - chemistry; Computer-Assisted; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Materials - chemistry; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dentistry; Dogs; Fluorides; Fluorides - chemistry; histology; Image Processing; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Mandible; Mandible - pathology; Mandible - surgery; Odontologi; Osseointegration; Osseointegration - physiology; Osteogenesis; Osteogenesis - physiology; pathology; physiology; Surface Properties; surgery; Surgical Flaps; Titanium; Titanium - chemistry; Wound Healing; Wound Healing - physiology
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01309.x

Objectives: The aim of the present experiment was to study early stages of osseointegration to implants with a fluoride‐modified surface. Material and methods: Six mongrel dogs, about 1‐year old, were used. All mandibular premolars and the first mandibular molars were extracted. Three months later, mucoperiosteal flaps were elevated in one side of the mandible and six sites were identified for implant placement. The control implants (MicroThread™) had a TiOblast surface, while the test implants (OsseoSpeed™) had a fluoride‐modified TiOblast surface. Both types of implants had a similar geometry, a diameter of 3.5 mm and were 8 mm long. Following installation, cover screws were placed and the flaps were adjusted and sutured to cover all implants. Four weeks after the first implant surgery, the installation procedure was repeated in the opposite side of the mandible. Two weeks later, biopsies were obtained and prepared for histological analysis. The void that occurred between the cut bone wall of the recipient site and the macro‐threads of the implant immediately following implant installation was used to study early bone formation. Results: It was demonstrated that the amount of new bone that formed in the voids within the first 2 weeks of healing was larger at fluoride‐modified implants (test) than at TiOblast (control) implants. It was further observed that the amount of bone‐to‐implant contact that had been established after 2 weeks in the macro‐threaded portion of the implant was significantly larger at the test implants than at the controls. Conclusion: It is suggested that the fluoride‐modified implant surface promotes osseointegration in the early phase of healing following implant installation.