Open hour: senin - sabtu 09:00:00 - 20:00:00; minggu & tanggal merah tutup
Discussion : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]

Discussion : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]

author: I De Tullio, M Berardini, D Di Iorio, F Perfetti, G Perfetti | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID

Data showed by the present study suggest that laser and sandblasted and acid-etched surface treatments could enhance the osteogenic bone formation by “contact,” already observed by other authors [20, 21].

Another interesting emerging datum is the observation of BIC% changes between 15 and 30 days: it is possible to assume that between the fifteenth and the thirtieth day, most part of the peri-implant bone apposition occurs in laser and sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces.

A previously published study [22], comparing machined to laser-treated surfaces, found clear and significant differences between the two surfaces in the amount of bone and significantly better secondary stability (measured by removal torque values).

Results of the present paper were confirmed by a study that observed good osseointegration and no significant differences in the BIC% at 2 or 4 weeks comparing sandblasted/acid-etched and laser-treated surfaces. They also found that the laser-treated surface was cleaner and more uniform than the SLA surface [23].

The smooth surface implants, used in the present in vivo evaluation, appeared integrated in the host bone with low values of bone to implant contact percentage in respect with rough surfaces, and this datum is well documented in the international literature [24, 25].

Other authors [26] also found no significant differences both in biomechanical strength and in implant stability between laser-etched and SLactive implant surfaces.

Sinjari et al. [27] also evaluated the effects of different titanium surface treatments on blood clot formation, and they demonstrated in vitro that the laser-conditioned surface, although it has a low roughness value (Ra of 0.25  ±  0.02 μm) compared to a standard grit-blasted surface (Ra of 1.30  ±  0.03 μm), had higher wettability and blood clot extension in respect with machined and rough surfaces.

Some authors [28] evaluated, in vitro, the biofilm formation of Porphyromonas gingivalis on titanium disks with different surface topographies. They analyzed a total of 96 disk-shaped specimens of laser-treated, sandblasted, and machined surfaces and they found that titanium grade 4 with laser topography appears to be significantly efficient in the reduction of the P. gingivalis biofilm formation. Data from this study demonstrated that the laser-treated implant surface allows osseointegration percentages entirely comparable to sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces. The innovation of this new laser surface treatment would seem to be in the fact that the poor roughness is more difficult to colonize from the bacteria responsible for peri-implant diseases.

Serial posts:


id post:
New thoughts
Me:
search
glossary
en in