Avaliação histomorfométrica e teste de remoção ao torque do implante dentário com superfície Ossean®: estudo experimental em cães

• Ano de defesa: 2008
• Autor(a) principal: Marin, Charles
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Uberlândia; BR; Programa de Pós-graduação em Odontologia; Ciências da Saúde; UFU
• Palavras-chave em Português: Osseointegração; Implantes dentários; Biomecânica; Implantes dentários osseointegrados; Osseointegration; Dental implants; Biomechanics; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufu.br/handle/123456789/16846

The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical fixation and bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) between the OsseanTM, a bioceramic gritblasted and acid-etched surface versus a dual acid-etched implant surface (Control) in a beagle dog model. Control and OsseanTM implants (n=3) were subjected to a series of physico/chemical characterization tools including scanning electron microscopy (SEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), and auger photoelectron spectroscopy (APS). The animal model comprised the placement of 72 implants along the proximal tibiae of 6 beagle dogs (36 per surface, 6 per limb, through bilateral sequenced procedures), which remained for 2 and 4 weeks implantation time. After euthanization, half the specimens were biomechanically tested (removal torque), and the other half was nondecalcified processed to ~30 mm thickness slides for histomorphologic and histomorphometric (%BIC) evaluation. ANOVA at 95% level of confidence and Tukey post-hoc test was utilized for multiple comparisons. The SEM and AFM showed that surface microtextures were qualitatively and quantitatively different, and that the OsseanTM surface presented higher submicrometer Ra and RMS values compared to Control surfaces. Ca and P was detected at the OsseanTM surface by APS. Higher degrees of bone organization were observed along the perimeter of the OsseanTM surface compared to Control, despite the nonsignificant differences in %BIC between surfaces (p > 0.16). Significantly higher removal torque was observed for the OsseanTM implants at both implantation times (p < 0.0001). According to the biomechanical and histomorphologic results, early wound healing was positively affected by the OsseanTM surface compared to the dual-acid etched surface.