Zoledronate Promotes Peri-Implant Osteogenesis in Diabetic Osteoporosis by the AMPK Pathway.

Together with diabetic osteoporosis (DOP), diabetes patients experience poor peri-implant osteogenesis following implantation for dentition defects. Zoledronate (ZOL) is widely used to treat osteoporosis clinically. To evaluate the mechanism of ZOL for the treatment of DOP, experiments with DOP rats and high glucose-grown MC3T3-E1 cells were used. The DOP rats treated with ZOL and/or ZOL implants underwent a 4-week implant-healing interval, and then microcomputed tomography, biomechanical testing, and immunohistochemical staining were performed to elucidate the mechanism. In addition, MC3T3-E1 cells were maintained in an osteogenic medium with or without ZOL to confirm the mechanism. The cell migration, cellular actin content, and osteogenic differentiation were evaluated by a cell activity assay, a cell migration assay, as well as alkaline phosphatase, alizarin red S, and immunofluorescence staining. The mRNA and protein expression of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK), phosphorylated AMPK (p-AMPK), osteoprotegerin (OPG), receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL), bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2), and collagen type I (Col-I) were detected using real-time quantitative PCRs and western blot assays, respectively. In the DOP rats, ZOL markedly improved osteogenesis, enhanced bone strength and increased the expression of AMPK, p-AMPK, and Col-I in peri-implant bones. The in vitro findings showed that ZOL reversed the high glucose-induced inhibition of osteogenesis via the AMPK signaling pathway. In conclusion, the ability of ZOL to promote osteogenesis in DOP by targeting AMPK signaling suggests that therapy with ZOL, particularly simultaneous local and systemic administration, may be a unique approach for future implant repair in diabetes patients.

The influence of two distinct surface modification techniques on the clinical efficacy of titanium implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of anodized and sandblasted large-grit acid-etched surface modification implants in clinical applications. METHODS: This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023423656). A systematic search was performed using seven databases. The meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 program and Stata 17.0 software. An analysis of the risk of bias in the included studies was conducted using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: A comprehensive analysis of 16 studies, which collectively encompassed a total of 2768 implants, was finished. Following a five years follow-up, the meta-analysis showed that the cumulative survival rate of implants was lower in the anodized group compared to the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group (RR, 3.47; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 9.81; P = 0.02). Furthermore, the anodized group and the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group had similar marginal bone loss over the one to three years follow-up period. However, it was observed that the marginal bone loss increased at the five years follow-up period in the anodized group in comparison to the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group (SMD, 2.98; 95 % CI, 0.91 to 5.06; P = 0.005). In terms of biological complications, plaque index, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth, we found no statistically significant differences between the anodized and sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group. CONCLUSIONS: The sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group exhibited higher implants cumulative survival rate and less marginal bone loss compared to the anodized group. Moreover, both groups demonstrated similar incidences of biological complications, plaque index, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth, suggesting overall equivalence in these aspects.