References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [4]
References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [4]
author: Rainde Naiara Rezende de Jesus, Eunice Carrilho, Pedro V Antunes, Amlcar Ramalho, Camilla Christian Gomes Moura, Andreas Stavrop | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID
de Jesus RNR, Stavropoulos A, Oliveira MTF, Soares PBF, Moura CCG, Zanetta-Barbosa D. Histomorphometric evaluation of a dual acid-etched vs. a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(5):551–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12833.
Frost HM. Skeletal structural adaptations to mechanical usage (SATMU): 1. Redefining Wolff’s law: the bone modeling problem. Anat Rec. 1990;226(4):403–13.
Berglundh T, Stavropoulos A; Working Group 1 of the VIII European Workshop on Periodontology. Preclinical in vivo research in implant dentistry. Consensus of the eighth European workshop on periodontology J Clin Periodontol 2012;39 Suppl 12:1–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01827.
Sawase T, Jimbo R, Baba K, Shibata Y, Ikeda T, Atsuta M. Photo-induced hydrophilicity enhances initial cell behavior and early bone apposition. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(5):491–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01509.
Ferguson SJ, Broggini N, Wieland M, de Wild M, Rupp F, Geis-Gerstorfer J, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the interfacial strength of a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched titanium surface. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006;78((2):291–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.30678.
Marin C, Granato R, Suzuki M, Gil JN, Piattelli A, Coelho PG. Removal torque and histomorphometric evaluation of bioceramic grit-blasted/acid-etched and dual acid-etched implant surfaces: an experimental study in dogs. J Periodontol. 2008;79(10):1942–9. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080106.
Stadlinger B, Pourmand P, Locher MC, Schulz MC. Systematic review of animal models for the study of implant integration, assessing the influence of material, surface and design. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(Suppl 12):28–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01835.
Pearce AI, Richards RG, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce SG. Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. Eur Cell Mater. 2007;13:1):1–10.
Vasak C, Busenlechner D, Schwarze UY, Leitner HF, Munoz Guzon F, Hefti T, et al. Early bone apposition to hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium implant surfaces: a histologic and histomorphometric study in minipigs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(12):1378–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12277.
Bosshardt DD, Salvi GE, Huynh-Ba G, Ivanovski S, Donos N, Lang NP. The role of bone debris in early healing adjacent to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in man. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(4):357–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02107.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]
- Abstract : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]
- Background : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]
- Background : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]
- Methods : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]
- Methods : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]
- Methods : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [3]
- Results : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles
- Discussion : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]
- Discussion : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]
- Discussion : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [3]
- Conclusions : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles
- Notes : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles
- References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]
- References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]
- References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [3]
- References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [4]
- References : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [5]
- Acknowledgements : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles
- Author information : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [1]
- Author information : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles [2]
- Ethics declarations : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles
- Rights and permissions : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles
- About this article : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles
- Table 1 One-way ANOVA variance and Tukey’s post hoc test values of removal torque (N cm), removal energy [N cm/rad (0.01 J)], and connection stiffness [N cm/rad] for SAE-HD and SAE implants at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively (n = 6; P < 0.05) : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles
- Table 2 Spearman rank correlation coefficient values between removal torque (N cm), removal energy [N cm/rad (0.01 J)], and connection stiffness [N cm/rad] for SAE-HD and SAE implants at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively (n = 6; P < 0.01) : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant surface: an experimental study in Beagles
- Fig. 1. Two pairs of implants (10 mm × 4 mm, L × Ø) from each of the experimental groups were placed in each tibia with an alternating fashion in terms of medio-distal positioning regarding the group, but with the first group chosen at random. Implants were placed with an inter-implant distance of 1 cm : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant
- Fig. 2. Adaptation of Shimadzu universal testing machine for performing removal torque test of dental implants. a General view. b Assembly detail of connection between Allen keys socket and the implant placed in the tibia : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant
- Fig. 3. Representative curve of the torque test for implants. a Graph of torque versus angular displacement with linear regression curve, and equation, representing the connection stiffness. b Determination procedure of unscrewing implant work up to test’s maximum torque : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant
- Fig. 4. Comparison among secant and tangent methods to calculate the connection stiffness values, which reveals the absence of mathematical discrepancy : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant
- Fig. 5. Mean and standard deviation of the biomechanical data at both observation periods (P > 0.05). a Removal torque. b Removal energy. c Connection stiffness : Interfacial biomechanical properties of a dual acid-etched versus a chemically modified hydrophilic dual acid-etched implant
- Abstract : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study
- Background : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [1]
- Background : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [2]
- Methods : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [1]
- Methods : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [2]
- Results : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [1]
- Results : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [2]
- Discussion : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [1]
- Discussion : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [2]
- Discussion : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [3]
- Conclusions : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study
- Abbreviations : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study
- References : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [1]
- References : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [2]
- References : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [3]
- References : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [4]
- References : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [5]
- Acknowledgements : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study
- Author information : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [1]
- Author information : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study [2]
- Ethics declarations : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study
- Rights and permissions : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study
- About this article : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study
- Table 1 Characteristics of participants and examining sites : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant sites with peri-implant diseases: a pilot study
- Fig. 1. Comparison of calprotectin levels in PICF. PICF samples were collected from peri-implant disease sites (n = 40, diseased) and non-diseased sites (n = 34, healthy). Calprotectin amounts (a) were measured by ELISA, and its concentration (b) was normalized by the volume of PICF. Horizontal bars show the mean values of each group. *P < 0.01 : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant
- Fig. 2. Comparison of NTx levels in PICF. NTx amounts (a) in PICF samples from peri-implant disease sites (n = 40, diseased) and non-diseased sites (n = 34, healthy) were measured by ELISA, and its concentration (b) was normalized by the volume of PICF. Horizontal bars show the mean values of each group. ‡P < 0.05, *P < 0.01 : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant
- Fig. 3. Relationship between PICF calprotectin amounts and PD or GI scores. a The relationship between PICF calprotectin amounts and PD was evaluated in PICF samples from peri-implant disease and healthy groups (n = 74, ρ = 0.709, P < 0.001). b Relationship between PICF calprotectin amounts and GI scores. Calprotectin amounts in PICF samples from sites with GI-0 (n = 34), GI-1 (n = 20), and GI-2 (n = 20) were statistically analyzed. Horizontal bars show the median of each group. †P < 0.001 : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant
- Fig. 4. Correlation between NTx amounts and PD or BL rates. a The correlation between PICF NTx amounts and PD was evaluated in PICF samples from peri-implant disease and healthy groups (n = 74, ρ = 0.434, P < 0.001). b The correlation between PICF NTx amounts and BL rates (%) was evaluated in PICF samples from peri-implant disease and healthy groups (n = 74, ρ = 0.570, P < 0.001) : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant
- Fig. 5. ROC analyses of PICF calprotectin and NTx to predict peri-implant diseases. PICF samples were collected from sites with and without peri-implant diseases (n = 74). Calprotectin (a) and NTx (b) amounts in PICF samples were subjected to ROC curve analysis. AUC values for calprotectin and NTx amounts were 0.964 (95% CI = 0.913–0.996, P < 0.001) and 0.784 (95% CI = 0.672–0.891, P < 0.001), respectively, when cutoff values were 60.4 ng/site (arrow in a) and 1.88 ng/site (arrow in b) : Calprotectin and cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen levels in crevicular fluid from implant