Materials and methods : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [3]
Materials and methods : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [3]
author: I De Tullio, M Berardini, D Di Iorio, F Perfetti, G Perfetti | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
Measurement of the total length of the left half of the fixture;
Measurement of the contact area between bone and implant in the left half of the fixture;
Measurement of the total length of the right half of the fixture; and
Measurement of the contact area between bone and implant in the right half of the fixture.
Afterwards, the sum of parameters A and C represented the total length of the whole implant (wIMP) while the sum of parameters B and D the total bone in direct contact (tBIC) with the implant surface. A value was obtained by the ratio between tBIC and wIMP which, compared to the unity, provided the percentage of BIC calculated for the single image (BIC%). The obtained BIC values from each group of samples were finally submitted to descriptive statistics and inferential analysis by using a specific software (SYSTAT 9.0; SPSS Science Software GmbH, Erkrarth, Germany).
Ordinary one-way ANOVA test was applied to test the statistical differences between the mean BIC% values of the groups using the statistical software GraphPad Prism 8.3.0 (www.graphpad.com).
T test was used to compare the BIC% mean value between 15 and 30 days of each group
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Introduction : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [1]
- Introduction : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]
- Materials and methods : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [1]
- Materials and methods : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]
- Materials and methods : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [3]
- Results : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Discussion : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [1]
- Discussion : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]
- Conclusions : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Availability of data and materials : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- References : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [1]
- References : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [2]
- References : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep [3]
- Acknowledgements : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Funding : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Author information : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Ethics declarations : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Additional information : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Rights and permissions : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- About this article : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on sheep
- Table 1 Implants details of both groups: screw pitch, smooth neck length, surface treatments, and roughness : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Table 2 Mean BIC% value of each group after 15 days of healing : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on
- Table 3 Mean BIC% value of each group after 30 days of healing : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant surfaces: an in vivo histologic analysis on
- Fig. 1. Scanning electron microscopy picture of group A implant surface : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 2. Scanning electron microscopy picture of group B implant surface : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 3. Scanning electron microscopy picture of group C implant surface : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 4. Exemplificative photo of implant placement in sheep iliac crest (left side). All implant groups were inserted in the same bone host : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 5. Optic microscope photo (× 9 magnification) after 15 days of implantation. Left side: machined implant (group C). Central photo: sandblasted and acid-etched implant (group A). Right side: laser-treated implant : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant
- Fig. 6. Optic microscope photo (× 9 magnification) after 30 days of implantation. Left side: machined implant (group C). Central photo: sandblasted and acid-etched implant (group A). Right side: laser-treated implant : Comparative evaluation among laser-treated, machined, and sandblasted/acid-etched implant