English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/237438
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Exportar a otros formatos:

Title

Influence of Three Dental Implant Surfaces on Cell Viability and Bone Behavior. An In Vitro and a Histometric Study in a Rabbit Model

AuthorsRizo-Gorrita, María; Fernandez-Asian, Ignacio; García de Frenza, Andreina; Vázquez-Pachón, Celia; Serrera-Figallo, María-Ángeles; Torres-Lagares, Daniel; Gutiérrez-Pérez, José-Luis
KeywordsDental implant surfaces
Surface roughness
Titanium
Osseointegration
Bone–implant interface
Issue Date2020
CitationApplied Sciences 10(14): 4790(2020)
AbstractThe chemical composition and the surface characteristics of dental implants are factors that have a decisive effect on the osseointegration process. The surface characterization at the compositional and topographic level of three dental implants available in the market was performed with different surface treatments: (1) sandblasted and acid etched surface (SLA), (2) hydroxyapatite (HA) and tricalcium phosphate (TCP) blasted surface (HA/TCP), and (3) HA-blasted and non-etching acid washed surface (HA + AW). In addition, an in vitro viability study of MG-63 osteoblast cells was performed with a JC-1 test. To complete the study, an in vivo study was conducted in New Zealand rabbits. The study analyzed the histometric characteristics of the bone formed around the implants at the level of area, volume, bone density, accumulated bone density, and bone–implant contact (BIC). The rabbits were sacrificed at 6 weeks after implants were placed in the tibial metaphysis. No statistically significant differences were observed at the level of cell viability or histometric parameters between the different study groups (p > 0.05). SLA and HA/TCP surfaces were the ones that obtained a higher BIC value. Taking into account the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the different implant surfaces analyzed favor a good bone response.
Description© 2020 by the authors.
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10144790
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/237438
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10144790
E-ISSN2076-3417
Appears in Collections:(IBIS) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Influence_Rizo_PV_Art2020.pdf9,58 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
Review this work
 

Related articles:


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.