We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 36 (2016), No. 5     30. Aug. 2016
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 36 (2016), No. 5  (30.08.2016)

Page 744-754, doi:10.11607/prd.2719, PubMed:27560680


Bone Response to Four Dental Implants with Different Surface Topographies: A Histologic and Histometric Study in Minipigs
Kalemaj, Zamira / Scarano, Antonio / Valbonetti, Luca / Rapone, Biagio / Grassi, Felice Roberto
This study evaluated four implant surfaces in a minipig model: (1) Kohno Straight dual-engineered surface (DES) (Sweden & Martina); (2) SLActive (Straumann); (3) SM Biotite-H coated with Brushite (DIO); and (4) UF hybrid sandblasted and acid etched (HAS) (DIO). The surfaces presented different topographic features on the macro-, micro-, and nanoscales. After 12 weeks in vivo, significant differences were observed in bone-to-implant contact. UF HAS, presenting moderate microroughness and high nanoroughness, showed some advantage compared to nanorough SM Biotite-H and SLActive. A more pronounced difference was observed between UF HAS and Kohno Straight DES, characterized by a nanosmooth surface. Newly formed bone was observed around all surfaces.