Logotipo do repositório
 

Publicação:
Osseointegration of implants with dendrimers surface characteristics installed conventionally or with Piezosurgery®. A comparative study in the dog

dc.contributor.authorBengazi, Franco
dc.contributor.authorLang, Niklaus P.
dc.contributor.authorCanciani, Elena
dc.contributor.authorViganò, Paolo
dc.contributor.authorVelez, Joaquin Urbizo
dc.contributor.authorBotticelli, Daniele
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:27:25Z
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:27:25Z
dc.date.issued2012-12-17
dc.description.abstractAim: The first aim of the present experiment was to compare bone healing at implants installed in recipient sites prepared with conventional drills or a piezoelectric device. The second aim was to compare implant osseointegration onto surfaces with and without dendrimers coatings. Material and Methods: Six Beagles dogs were used in this study. Five implants with two different surfaces, three with a ZirTi® surface (zirconia sand blasted, acid etched), and two with a ZirTi®-modified surface with dendrimers of phosphoserine and polylysine were installed in the right side of the mandible. In the most anterior region (P2, P3), two recipient sites were prepared with drills, and one implant ZirTi® surface and one coated with dendrimers implants were installed at random. In the posterior region (P4 and M1), three recipient sites were randomly prepared: two sites with a Piezosurgery® instrument and one site with drill and two ZirTi® surface and one coated with dendrimers implants installed. Three months after the surgery, the animals were sacrificed for histological analysis. Results: No complications occurred during the healing period. Three implants were found not integrated and were excluded from analysis. However, n = 6 was obtained. The distance IS-B at the buccal aspect was 2.2 ± 0.8 and 1.8 ± 0.5 mm, while IS-C was 1.5 ± 0.9 and 1.4 ± 0.6 mm at the Piezosurgery® and drill groups, respectively. Similar values were obtained between the dendrimers-coated and ZirTi® surface implants. The BIC% values were higher at the drill (72%) compared to the Piezosurgery® (67%) sites. The BIC% were also found to be higher at the ZirTi® (74%) compared to the dendrimers-coated (65%) implants, the difference being statistically significant. Conclusion: This study has revealed that oral implants may osseointegrate equally well irrespective of whether their bed was prepared utilizing conventional drills with abundant cooling or Piezosurgery®. Moreover, the surface coating of implants with dendrimers phosphoserine and polylysine did not improve osseointegration. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.en
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12082
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, v. 0.
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.12082
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161
dc.identifier.issn1600-0501
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84870820656
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/74071
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000328468800003
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research
dc.relation.ispartofjcr4.305
dc.relation.ispartofsjr2,462
dc.relation.ispartofsjr2,462
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectAnimal study
dc.subjectBone healing
dc.subjectDendrimers coating
dc.subjectHistology
dc.subjectImplant dentistry
dc.subjectOsseointegration
dc.subjectPiezosurgery®
dc.subjectSurface characteristics
dc.titleOsseointegration of implants with dendrimers surface characteristics installed conventionally or with Piezosurgery®. A comparative study in the dogen
dc.typeArtigo
dcterms.licensehttp://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-406071.html
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-2804-1632[6]

Arquivos

Coleções