Next Article in Journal
Mechanical Performance of Warm-Mixed Porous Asphalt Mixture with Steel Slag and Crumb-Rubber–SBS Modified Bitumen for Seasonal Frozen Regions
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Process Fluctuations on Residual Stress Evolution in Rotary Swaging of Steel Tubes
Previous Article in Special Issue
In Vitro Assessment of the Functional Dynamics of Titanium with Surface Coating of Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Materials 2019, 12(6), 856; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12060856

Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study

1
Department of Research, Biotecnos, Cuareim 1483, Montevideo CP 11100, Uruguay
2
Department of Oral and Implant Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Católica de Murcia (UCAM), 30107 Murcia, Spain
3
Instituto de Bioingenieria, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Avda. Ferrocarril s/n, 03202 Elche (Alicante), Spain
4
Department of Medicine and Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28922 Madrid, Spain
5
Department of Continuum Mechanics and Structural Analysis, Carlos III University, 28911 Madrid, Spain
6
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary, Faculty of Itapiranga, Itapiranga CP 89896000, Brazil
7
Laboratorio de Interacciones Molecular, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la Republica, Calle Iguá 4225, Montevideo 11400, Uruguay
8
Department of Dental Research, Universidad Federico Henriquez y Carvajal (UFHEC), Santo Domingo 10107, Dominican Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Equal Contribuition.
Received: 11 February 2019 / Revised: 4 March 2019 / Accepted: 12 March 2019 / Published: 14 March 2019
Full-Text   |   PDF [4143 KB, uploaded 14 March 2019]   |  

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform an in vivo histological comparative evaluation of bone formation around titanium (machined and treated surface) and zirconia implants. For the present study were used 50 commercially pure titanium implants grade IV, being that 25 implants with a machined surface (TiM group), 25 implants with a treated surface (TiT group) and, 25 implants were manufactured in pure zirconia (Zr group). The implants (n = 20 per group) were installed in the tibia of 10 rabbits. The implants distribution was randomized (n = 3 implants per tibia). Five implants of each group were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and an optical laser profilometer for surface roughness characterization. Six weeks after the implantation, 10 implants for each group were removed in counter-torque for analysis of maximum torque value. The remaining samples were processed, included in historesin and cut to obtain non-decalcified slides for histomorphological analyses and histomorphometric measurement of the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC%). Comparisons were made between the groups using a 5% level of significance (p < 0.05) to assess statistical differences. The results of removal torque values (mean ± standard deviation) showed for the TiM group 15.9 ± 4.18 N cm, for TiT group 27.9 ± 5.15 N cm and for Zr group 11.5 ± 2.92 N cm, with significant statistical difference between the groups (p < 0.0001). However, the BIC% presented similar values for all groups (35.4 ± 4.54 for TiM group, 37.8 ± 4.84 for TiT group and 34.0 ± 6.82 for Zr group), with no statistical differences (p = 0.2171). Within the limitations of the present study, the findings suggest that the quality of the new bone tissue formed around the titanium implants present a superior density (maturation) in comparison to the zirconia implants. View Full-Text
Keywords: osseointegration; bone healing; bone quality; zirconia implants; titanium implants osseointegration; bone healing; bone quality; zirconia implants; titanium implants
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Gehrke, S.A.; Prados-Frutos, J.C.; Prados-Privado, M.; Calvo-Guirado, J.L.; Aramburú Júnior, J.; Pérez-Díaz, L.; Mazón, P.; Aragoneses, J.M.; De Aza, P.N. Biomechanical and Histological Analysis of Titanium (Machined and Treated Surface) Versus Zirconia Implant Materials: An In Vivo Animal Study. Materials 2019, 12, 856.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Materials EISSN 1996-1944 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top