Comparison of osseointegration on various implant surfaces after bacterial contamination and cleaning: a rabbit study.

Kuo Yuan, Ying Jen Chan, Kuan Chen Kung, Tzer-Min Lee

研究成果: Article

19 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

To examine the osseointegration of various implant surfaces after bacterial contamination and cleaning. Four types of implant surface were manufactured: machined (M); plasma-spray hydroxyapaptite (HA); sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SA); and titanium anodic oxide (TAO) were manufactured. The surface characteristics of these implants were determined using a scanning electron microscope, an energy dispersive spectrometer, and a contact profilometer. Each surface was subdivided into control and test groups. Test implants were co-incubated with Prevotella intermedia for 2 weeks, then cleaned with cotton pellets, soaked in saline, and irrigated. Control implants underwent the same cleaning procedure, but without bacterial contamination. Four control or test implants with different surface types were randomly inserted into the tibia of 10 New Zealand white rabbits. After 6 weeks of healing, 5 rabbits were sacrificed for histomorphometry, and the rest for removal torque assay. Bacterial contamination adversely influenced every implant surface in terms of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) ratio and required removal torque. The negative results reached significant levels for rougher surfaces (HA and SA). For both contaminated and uncontaminated samples, HA and SA implants required significantly higher removal torque than that required for M implants. Bacterial contamination jeopardized osseointegration on every tested implant surface. A more negative effect on BIC was found for implants with rougher surfaces. However, contaminated rough-surfaced implants showed more removal torque resistance than contaminated smooth implants.

原文English
頁(從 - 到)32-40
頁數9
期刊The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
29
發行號1
DOIs
出版狀態Published - 2014 一月 1

指紋

Osseointegration
Torque
Rabbits
Prevotella intermedia
Bone and Bones
Tibia
Electrons
Control Groups
Acids

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oral Surgery

引用此文

@article{136fa72cc0bb410f9a449ab81e68364d,
title = "Comparison of osseointegration on various implant surfaces after bacterial contamination and cleaning: a rabbit study.",
abstract = "To examine the osseointegration of various implant surfaces after bacterial contamination and cleaning. Four types of implant surface were manufactured: machined (M); plasma-spray hydroxyapaptite (HA); sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SA); and titanium anodic oxide (TAO) were manufactured. The surface characteristics of these implants were determined using a scanning electron microscope, an energy dispersive spectrometer, and a contact profilometer. Each surface was subdivided into control and test groups. Test implants were co-incubated with Prevotella intermedia for 2 weeks, then cleaned with cotton pellets, soaked in saline, and irrigated. Control implants underwent the same cleaning procedure, but without bacterial contamination. Four control or test implants with different surface types were randomly inserted into the tibia of 10 New Zealand white rabbits. After 6 weeks of healing, 5 rabbits were sacrificed for histomorphometry, and the rest for removal torque assay. Bacterial contamination adversely influenced every implant surface in terms of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) ratio and required removal torque. The negative results reached significant levels for rougher surfaces (HA and SA). For both contaminated and uncontaminated samples, HA and SA implants required significantly higher removal torque than that required for M implants. Bacterial contamination jeopardized osseointegration on every tested implant surface. A more negative effect on BIC was found for implants with rougher surfaces. However, contaminated rough-surfaced implants showed more removal torque resistance than contaminated smooth implants.",
author = "Kuo Yuan and Chan, {Ying Jen} and Kung, {Kuan Chen} and Tzer-Min Lee",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.11607/jomi.2436",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "32--40",
journal = "International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of osseointegration on various implant surfaces after bacterial contamination and cleaning

T2 - a rabbit study.

AU - Yuan, Kuo

AU - Chan, Ying Jen

AU - Kung, Kuan Chen

AU - Lee, Tzer-Min

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - To examine the osseointegration of various implant surfaces after bacterial contamination and cleaning. Four types of implant surface were manufactured: machined (M); plasma-spray hydroxyapaptite (HA); sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SA); and titanium anodic oxide (TAO) were manufactured. The surface characteristics of these implants were determined using a scanning electron microscope, an energy dispersive spectrometer, and a contact profilometer. Each surface was subdivided into control and test groups. Test implants were co-incubated with Prevotella intermedia for 2 weeks, then cleaned with cotton pellets, soaked in saline, and irrigated. Control implants underwent the same cleaning procedure, but without bacterial contamination. Four control or test implants with different surface types were randomly inserted into the tibia of 10 New Zealand white rabbits. After 6 weeks of healing, 5 rabbits were sacrificed for histomorphometry, and the rest for removal torque assay. Bacterial contamination adversely influenced every implant surface in terms of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) ratio and required removal torque. The negative results reached significant levels for rougher surfaces (HA and SA). For both contaminated and uncontaminated samples, HA and SA implants required significantly higher removal torque than that required for M implants. Bacterial contamination jeopardized osseointegration on every tested implant surface. A more negative effect on BIC was found for implants with rougher surfaces. However, contaminated rough-surfaced implants showed more removal torque resistance than contaminated smooth implants.

AB - To examine the osseointegration of various implant surfaces after bacterial contamination and cleaning. Four types of implant surface were manufactured: machined (M); plasma-spray hydroxyapaptite (HA); sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SA); and titanium anodic oxide (TAO) were manufactured. The surface characteristics of these implants were determined using a scanning electron microscope, an energy dispersive spectrometer, and a contact profilometer. Each surface was subdivided into control and test groups. Test implants were co-incubated with Prevotella intermedia for 2 weeks, then cleaned with cotton pellets, soaked in saline, and irrigated. Control implants underwent the same cleaning procedure, but without bacterial contamination. Four control or test implants with different surface types were randomly inserted into the tibia of 10 New Zealand white rabbits. After 6 weeks of healing, 5 rabbits were sacrificed for histomorphometry, and the rest for removal torque assay. Bacterial contamination adversely influenced every implant surface in terms of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) ratio and required removal torque. The negative results reached significant levels for rougher surfaces (HA and SA). For both contaminated and uncontaminated samples, HA and SA implants required significantly higher removal torque than that required for M implants. Bacterial contamination jeopardized osseointegration on every tested implant surface. A more negative effect on BIC was found for implants with rougher surfaces. However, contaminated rough-surfaced implants showed more removal torque resistance than contaminated smooth implants.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84900029872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84900029872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11607/jomi.2436

DO - 10.11607/jomi.2436

M3 - Article

C2 - 24451851

AN - SCOPUS:84900029872

VL - 29

SP - 32

EP - 40

JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 1

ER -