This study aimed to compare bone healing and implant stability for three types of dental implants: a threaded implant, a three-dimensional (3D)-printed implant without spikes, and a 3D-printed implant with spikes. In four beagle dogs, left and right mandibular premolars (2nd, 3rd, and 4th) and 1st molars were removed. Twelve weeks later, three types of titanium implants (threaded implant, 3D-printed implant without spikes, and 3D-printed implant with spikes) were randomly inserted into the edentulous ridges of each dog. Implant stability measurements and radiographic recordings were taken every two weeks following implant placement. Twelve weeks after implant surgery, the dogs were sacrificed and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupied (BAFO) were compared between groups. At implant surgery, the primary stability was lower for the 3D-printed implant with spikes (74.05 ± 5.61) than for the threaded implant (83.71 ± 2.90) (p = 0.005). Afterwards, no significant difference in implants' stability was observed between groups up to post-surgery week 12. Histomorphometrical analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the three implants for BIC (p = 0.101) or BAFO (p = 0.288). Within the limits of this study, 3D-printed implants without spikes and threaded implants showed comparable implant stability measurements, BIC, and BAFO.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated differences in bone healing and remodeling among 3 implants with different surfaces: sandblasting and large-grit acid etching (SLA; IS-III Active®), SLA with hydroxyapatite nanocoating (IS-III Bioactive®), and SLA stored in sodium chloride solution (SLActive®). METHODS: The mandibular second, third, and fourth premolars of 9 dogs were extracted. After 4 weeks, 9 dogs with edentulous alveolar ridges underwent surgical placement of 3 implants bilaterally and were allowed to heal for 2, 4, or 12 weeks. Histologic and histomorphometric analyses were performed on 54 stained slides based on the following parameters: vertical marginal bone loss at the buccal and lingual aspects of the implant (b-MBL and l-MBL, respectively), mineralized bone-to-implant contact (mBIC), osteoid-to-implant contact (OIC), total bone-to-implant contact (tBIC), mineralized bone area fraction occupied (mBAFO), osteoid area fraction occupied (OAFO), and total bone area fraction occupied (tBAFO) in the threads of the region of interest. Two-way analysis of variance (3 types of implant surface×3 healing time periods) and additional analyses for simple effects were performed. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed across the implant surfaces for OIC, mBIC, tBIC, OAFO, and tBAFO. Statistically significant differences were observed over time for l-MBL, mBIC, tBIC, mBAFO, and tBAFO. In addition, an interaction effect between the implant surface and the healing time period was observed for mBIC, tBIC, and mBAFO. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that implant surface wettability facilitates bone healing dynamics, which could be attributed to the improvement of early osseointegration. In addition, osteoblasts might become more activated with the use of HA-coated surface implants than with hydrophobic surface implants in the remodeling phase.
