Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Histomorphometry and bone mechanical property evolution around different implant systems at early healing stages: an
Ryo Jimbo1, Rodolfo Anchieta, Marta Baldassarri
1*Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. †Researcher, Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY; Private Practice, Paris, France. ‡Lecturer, Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil. §Assistant Professor, Department of Dentistry, UNIGRANRIO, Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ‖Researcher, Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY. ¶Adjunct Professor, Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY. #Assistant Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium. **Senior Research Scientist, Department of Epidemiology, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY. ††Assistant Professor of Biomaterials and Biomimetics and Director for Research, Department of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY.
Purpose:
Commercial implants differ at macro-, micro-, and nanolevels, which makes it difficult to distinguish their effect on osseointegration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the early integration of 5 commercially available implants (Astra OsseoSpeed, Straumann SLA, Intra-Lock Blossom Ossean, Nobel Active, and OsseoFix) by histomorphometry and nanoindentation.
Materials And Methods:
Implants were installed in the tibiae of 18 beagle dogs. Samples were retrieved at 1, 3, and 6 weeks (n = 6 for each time point) and were histologically and nanomechanically evaluated.
Results:
The results presented that both time (P < 0.01) and implant system and time interaction (P < 0.02) significantly affected the bone-to-implant contact (BIC). At 1 week, the different groups presented statistically different outcomes. No significant changes in BIC were noted thereafter. There were no significant differences in rank elastic modulus (E) or in rank hardness (H) for time (E: P > 0.80; H: P > 0.75) or implant system (E: P > 0.90; H: P > 0.85).
Conclusions:
The effect of different implant designs on osseointegration was evident especially at early stages of bone healing.
