Skip to main content
PMC home page
Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine logoLink to Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
. 2016 Apr 5;13(2):191–199. doi: 10.1007/s13770-016-9126-x

Osseointegration of magnesium-incorporated sand-blasted acid-etched implant in the dog mandible: Resonance frequency measurements and histomorphometric analysis

Won-Wook Song 1, Jin-Ho Heo 1, Jeong-Han Lee 1, Young-Min Park 2, Yong-Deok Kim 1,3,4,✉
PMCID: PMC6170849  PMID: 30603399

Abstract

The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the bone responses of novel magnesium (Mg)–incorporated sand-blasted and acid-etched (SLA) titanium (Ti) implant in an experimental animal model. Novel Mg-incorporated SLA Ti implant was obtained via vacuum arc source ion implantation method and Mg-ions were implanted into the SLA implant surface. Control group consisted of two commercial implants; resorbable blasting media (RBM) and SLA. Twelve implants from each group were placed into the mandibles of 6 mongrel dogs. Experimental animals were divided into 2 groups of 3 animals, with 4 weeks and 8 weeks healing time points. Resonance frequency analysis was performed at the time of fixture installation, 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks after installation. Bone to implant contact (BIC) measurements were assessed at the 4 and 8 weeks healing time points. The overall implant survival rate was 97.2%. The Mg-incorporated SLA Ti implants showed more rapid osseointegration than control group implants at follow-up periods of 4 weeks. Histomorphometric analysis showed a tendency for BIC% values of Mg-incorporated SLA Ti implant to be higher than that of other the implant groups. The results of this study suggest that Mg-incorporated SLA Ti implant may be effective in enhancing the bone responses by rapid osseointegration in early healing periods.

Key Words: Dental implant, Animal study, Surface treatment, Bone to implant contact, Bone metabolism

References

  • 1.Buser D, Nydegger T, Oxland T, Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Hirt HP, et al. Interface shear strength of titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a biomechanical study in the maxilla of miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;45:75–83. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199905)45:2<75::AID-JBM1>3.0.CO;2-P. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.de Groot K, Geesink R, Klein CP, Serekian P. Plasma sprayed coatings of hydroxylapatite. J Biomed Mater Res. 1987;21:1375–1381. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820211203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sul YT. The significance of the surface properties of oxidized titanium to the bone response: special emphasis on potential biochemical bonding of oxidized titanium implant. Biomaterials. 2003;24:3893–3907. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00261-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19:319–328. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wennerberg A, Ektessabi A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andersson B. A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:486–494. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Novaes A J, Souza SL, de Oliveira PT, Souza AM. Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17:377–383. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Iezzi G, Petrone G, Piattelli A. Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol. 2002;28:2–8. doi: 10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0002:BRTMAR>2.3.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kim BS, Kim JS, Park YM, Choi BY, Lee J. Mg ion implantation on SLA-treated titanium surface and its effects on the behavior of mesenchymal stem cell. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2013;33:1554–1560. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2012.12.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sul YT. Gothenburg, Sweden: Thesis. 2002. On the bone response to oxidized titanium implants: the role of microporous structure and chemical composition of the surface oxide in enhanced osseointegration. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sul YT, Johansson CB, Kang Y, Jeon DG, Albrektsson T. Bone reactions to oxidized titanium implants with electrochemical anion sulphuric acid and phosphoric acid incorporation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4:78–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00156.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sul YT, Byon ES, Jeong Y. Biomechanical measurements of calcium-incorporated oxidized implants in rabbit bone: effect of calcium surface chemistry of a novel implant. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2004;6:101–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00032.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sul YT, Johansson C, Byon E, Albrektsson T. The bone response of oxidized bioactive and non-bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials. 2005;26:6720–6730. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.04.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ellingsen JE, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Holmén A. Improved retention and bone-tolmplant contact with fluoride-modified titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19:659–666. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hanawa T, Kamiura Y, Yamamoto S, Kohgo T, Amemiya A, Ukai H, et al. Early bone formation around calcium-ion-implanted titanium inserted into rat tibia. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997;36:131–136. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199707)36:1<131::AID-JBM16>3.0.CO;2-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zreiqat H, Howlett CR, Zannettino A, Evans P, Schulze-Tanzil G, Knabe C, et al. Mechanisms of magnesium-stimulated adhesion of osteoblastic cells to commonly used orthopaedic implants. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;62:175–184. doi: 10.1002/jbm.10270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zreiqat H, Valenzuela SM, Nissan BB, Roest R, Knabe C, Radlanski RJ, et al. The effect of surface chemistry modification of titanium alloy on signalling pathways in human osteoblasts. Biomaterials. 2005;26:7579–7586. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.05.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sul YT, Johansson P, Chang BS, Byon ES, Jeong Y. Bone tissue responses to Mg-incorporated oxidized implants and machine-turned implantsin the rabbit femur. J Appl Biomater Biomech. 2005;3:18–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Park JW, An CH, Jeong SH, Suh JY. Osseointegration of commercial microstructured titanium implants incorporating magnesium: a histomorphometric study in rabbit cancellous bone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:294–300. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02144.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Integration of screw implants in the rabbit: a 1-year follow-up of removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1987;2:69–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Thomas KA, Kay JF, Cook SD, Jarcho M. The effect of surface macrotexture and hydroxylapatite coating on the mechanical strengths and histologic profiles of titanium implant materials. J Biomed Mater Res. 1987;21:1395–1414. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820211205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sennerby L, Meredith N. Resonance frequency analysis: measuring implant stability and osseointegration. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998;19:493–498. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Meredith N, Shagaldi F, Alleyne D, Sennerby L, Cawley P. The application of resonance frequency measurements to study the stability of titanium implants during healing in the rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8:234–243. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080310.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sul YT, Jönsson J, Yoon GS, Johansson C. Resonance frequency measurements in vivo and related surface properties of magnesium-incorporated, micropatterned and magnesium-incorporated TiUnite, Osseotite, SLA and TiOblast implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1146–1155. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01767.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Byon E, Moon S, Cho SB, Jeong CY, Jeong Y, Sul YT. Electrochemical property and apatite formation of metal ion implanted titanium for medical implants. Surf Coat Technol. 2005;200:1018–1021. doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2005.02.133. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: part 1—review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:536–543. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Park JW, Kim YJ, Jang JH, Song H. Osteoblast response to magnesium ion-incorporated nanoporous titanium oxide surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:1278–1287. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01944.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cho LR, Kim DG, Kim JH, Byon ES, Jeong YS, Park CJ. Bone response of Mg ion-implanted clinical implants with the plasma source ion implantation method. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:848–856. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01862.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhou W, Han C, Yunming L, Li D, Song Y, Zhao Y. Is the osseointegration of immediately and delayed loaded implants the same?—comparison of the implant stability during a 3-month healing period in a prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:1360–1366. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01757.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schätzle M, Männchen R, Balbach U, Hämmerle CH, Toutenburg H, Jung RE. Stability change of chemically modified sandblasted/acid-etched titanium palatal implants. A randomized-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:489–495. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01694.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Han J, Lulic M, Lang NP. Factors influencing resonance frequency analysis assessed by Osstell mentor during implant tissue integration: II. Implant surface modifications and implant diameter. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:605–611. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01909.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schliephake H, Sewing A, Aref A. Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in the dog mandible: experimental comparison with histomorphometric data. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;35:941–946. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2006.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Abrahamsson I, Linder E, Lang NP. Implant stability in relation to osseointegration: an experimental study in the Labrador dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:313–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01646.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Abdel-Haq J, Karabuda CZ, Arisan V, Mutlu Z, Kürkçü M. Osseointegration and stability of a modified sand-blasted acid-etched implant: an experimental pilot study in sheep. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:265–274. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01990.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kim DS, Kim DG, Park CJ, Cho LR. Histomorphometry and stability analysis of early loaded implants with two different surface conditions in beagle dogs. J Adv Prosthodont. 2009;1:10–18. doi: 10.4047/jap.2009.1.1.10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES