Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 28;12(13):2078. doi: 10.3390/ma12132078

Figure 5.

Figure 5

(a) Representative histologic sections of the rabbit tibia at 10 and 28 days after the implant placement. In the SLA implant, the osteoblast and organic matrix, which had not mineralized yet, was more observable on the interface between the bone and implant compared to the M + UV implant (red arrow head; magnification ×12.5, ×40, and ×100 from the left, hematoxylin and eosin staining). The scale bars: 1 mm at ×12.5, 200 μm at ×40, and 100 μm at ×100 magnification. (b) The bone-to-implant contact ratio (BIC) was evaluated histologically at days 10 and 28. The M + UV implant shows a significantly higher BIC than the SLA at day 10, but there is no significant difference at day 28. (c) The bone area ratio (BA) evaluated histologically at 10 and 28 days. The M + UV implants show significantly more BA than the SLA at days 10 and 28. (d) The bone-to-implant contact ratio evaluated by micro-CT (3D BIC) at days 10 and 28. The M + UV implants show a significantly higher 3D BIC than the SLA at day 10, but there is no significant difference at day 28. Error bars show the standard deviation. (*) represents the significance compared with each pair, p < 0.05.