Surface Topographical Changes

Vandewalle S^*

Department of Prosthodontics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

*Corresponding Author:

Vandewalle S
Department of Prosthodontics
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati
Ohio, USA
Tel: +1 513-556-600
E-mail: kraig.vandewalle. 2.ctr@us.af.mil

Received date: February 15, 2016, Accepted date: March 03, 2016, Published date: April 15, 2016

Citation:Vandewalle S (2016) Surface Topographical Changes. Dent Implants Dentures 1:107. doi:10.4172/2572-4835.1000107

Copyright: © 2016 Vandewalle S. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Dental Science and Medicine

Keywords

Bone volume; Osseo densification; Osseo integration; Bone expansion; Poor bone

Introduction

There is no question that over the last two decades dental implants have revolutionized tooth replacement and the practice of dentistry. The concept of dental implants is not new; the earliest recorded attempts of their use were discovered in the Mayan civilization dating back to 600 A.D. Today's highly successful dental implants consist of root replacement for a natural tooth, to which a crown is attached, just like the teeth in your mouth when you smile, there is no visible difference. In addition they do not decay and are relatively free from developing gum disease.

Treatment modalities in dentistry today, this not only involves scientific discovery, research and understanding, but application in clinical practice [1]. The practice of implant dentistry requires expertise in planning, surgical placement and crown fabrication; it is as much about art and experience as it is about science. It also requires teamwork between you, the patient, your dentist, an implant surgeon and dental technician.

The mechanical friction between Implant surface and bone walls of the osteotomy site gives primary implant stability. The Osseo integration process leads to new bone apposition on the implant surface and allows reaching the implant secondary stability that is the functional contact between alive bone and titanium dental implant. In case of poor bone density, such as upper human jaw, the insufficient bone amount around the implants could negatively influence the histomorphometric parameters (such as %BIC and bone volume percentage [%BV]) and, consequently, both primary and secondary implant stabilities. Undersized implant site preparation and the use of osteotomies to condense bone [2] are surgical techniques proposed to increase primary implant stability and %BIC in poor density bone. Different healing patterns and per implant bone remodeling models were also observed [3] between standard sites.

Materials and Methods

The edges of the iliac crests of 2 sheep were exposed and ten 3.8 3 10 mm dynamics implants (Cortex) were inserted in the left sides using the conventional drilling method(control group). Ten 5, 3, 10 mm Dynamics implants (Cortex) were inserted in the right sides (test group) using the Osseo densification procedure. After 2 months of healing, the sheep were killed, and biomechanical and histological examinations were performed.

Results

No implant failures were observed after 2 months of healing. A significant increase of ridge width and bone volume percentage (%BV) (approximately 30% higher) was detected in the test group. Significantly better removal torque values and micro motion under lateral forces (value of actual micro motion) were recorded for the test group in respect with the control group.

Conclusion

Osseo densification technique used in the present in vivo study was demonstrated to be able to increase the %BV around dental implants inserted in low-density bone in respect to conventional implant drilling techniques, which may play a role in enhancing implant stability and reduce micro motion. Density New Osseo densification Implant Site preparation and undersized implant site preparation. Specifically designed implants for low-density bone were also developed testifying the hardness of the challenge to reach a sufficient implant stability in poor bone density [4,5]. The use of the osteotomies in poor density bone allows fracturing and condensing of bone trabecular, but this technique does not improve per implant bone density (%BV) or implant stability. It is demonstrated that fractured trabecular in peri implant bone, caused using the osteotomy technique, induce a delayed secondary stability with respect to conventional drilling procedures during healing. Besides, tooth loss, old age, and removable or unsuitable removable dentures inevitably lead to alveolar bone resorptions both in height and width. It was reported that bone reduction in a width of approximately 25% after 1 year of tooth extraction and the mandible showed a bone loss rate 4 times higher than the upper maxilla [6]. Narrow alveolar bone ridges are common in edentulous patients needing dental implant restoration, and many surgical techniques have been developed, over the years, to perform bone expansion or augmentation. The alveolar ridge splitting/ expansion technique in 1-stage was proposed as a valid alternative to the 2-stage Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR). The predictability of horizontal and vertical augmentation techniques by bone regeneration, using bone substitutes or autogenously bone, is still not clear, and surgical complications are common. However, osteodistraction ontogenesis and ridge splitting technique are considered efficient to increase bone width with lesser complication incidence.

References

1. Braceras I, De Maeztu MA, Alava JI, Gay EC (2009) In vivo low-density bone apposition on different implant surface materials. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 38: 274-278.
2. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T (2000) Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation ofimplant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15: 331-344.
3. Chaturvedi TP (2009) An overview of the corrosion aspect of dental implants (titanium and its alloys). Indian journal of dental research 20: 91-98.
4. Sul YT, Byon E, Wennerberg A (2008) Surface characteristics of electrochemically oxidized implants and acid - etched implants: surface chemistry, morphology, pore configurations, oxide thickness, crystal structure, and roughness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 23: 631-640.
5. Cooper LF, Masuda T, Whitson SW, Yliheikkila P, Felton DA (1999) Formation of mineralizing osteoblast cultures on machined, titanium oxide grit-blasted, and plasma-sprayed titanium surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14: 37-47.
6. Szmukler-Moncler S, Testori T, Bernard JP (2004) Etched implants: a comparative surface analysis of four implant systems. Journal of biomedical materials research Part B,