Purpose: This study tested the null hypothesis that differences in surgical instrumentation, macrogeometry, and surface treatment imposed by different implant systems do not affect early biomechanical fixation in a canine mandible model. Materials and Methods: The lower premolars of 6 beagle dogs were extracted and the ridges allowed to heal for 8 weeks. Thirty-six (n = 12 each group) implants were bilaterally placed, remaining for 1 and 3 weeks in vivo. The implant groups were as follows: group 1, Ti-6Al-4V with a dual acid-etched surface with nanometer scale discrete crystalline deposition (Nanotite; Certain Biomet-3i, West Palm Springs, FL); group 2, Ti-6Al-4V with a titanium oxide-blasted fluoride-modified surface chemistry (Osseospeed 4.0 S; Astra Tech, Mölndal, Sweden); group 3: Ti-6Al-4V with a bioceramic microblasted surface (Ossean; Intra-Lock International, Boca Raton, FL). Following euthanasia, implants were torqued to interface failure and histologically evaluated. General linear modeling (ANOVA) at 95% level of significance was performed. Results: Histology showed that interfacial bone remodeling and initial woven bone formation were observed around all implant groups at 1 and 3 weeks. Torque values were significantly affected by time in vivo, implant group, and their interaction (P = .016, P < .001, and P = .001, respectively). Regarding torque values, group 3, group 2, and group 1 ranked highest, intermediate, and lowest, respectively. Conclusion: Early biomechanical fixation at 1 and 3 weeks was affected by surgical instrumentation, macrogeometry, and surface treatment present for one of the implant systems tested. The null hypothesis was rejected.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Oral Surgery