Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 6, 2026
11:51
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
16.0K
The Effect of Superstructures Connected to Implants with Different Surface Properties on the Surrounding Bone
Katsunori Koretake1, Hiroshi Oue2, Shinsuke Okada3
1Department of Advanced Prosthodontics, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi Minami-ku, Hiroshima 734-8553, Japan. katsu@hiroshima-u.ac.jp.
Journal of Functional Biomaterials
|July 28, 2015
Summary
Connecting implants with different surface properties revealed that machined implants at distal sites may pose a risk to implant-bone binding. Further research is needed to understand this potential risk factor in dental implantology.
Area of Science:
- Biomaterials Science
- Dental Implantology
- Bone Biology
Background:
- Dental implant surface properties significantly influence osseointegration and long-term stability.
- Understanding the biomechanical interactions between implants with varying surface characteristics and surrounding bone is crucial for clinical success.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the impact of connecting superstructures to implants with different surface topographies (machined vs. anodized) on surrounding mandibular bone.
- To assess the influence of implant surface properties and placement on bone remodeling, implant stability, and bone-implant contact.
Main Methods:
- Comparative study in a canine model involving placement of machined and anodized implants in edentulous mandibular areas.
- Superstructures were connected after 12 weeks, followed by measurements of implant stability quotient (ISQ), removal torque, and marginal bone loss at 24 weeks.
- Histological and fluorescent analyses were performed to assess bone remodeling and bone-implant contact.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in ISQ values or marginal bone loss were observed between machined and anodized implant groups.
- Removal torque values were significantly lower for distal machined implants compared to distal anodized implants, indicating weaker implant-bone binding.
- Histological examination confirmed bone remodeling activity around all implant types, but highlighted potential issues with machined implants in distal locations.
Conclusions:
- Connecting implants with dissimilar surface properties may influence biomechanical outcomes, with machined implants at distal sites potentially representing a risk factor for compromised implant-bone binding.
- The findings suggest careful consideration of surface topography when planning multi-implant restorations, especially in posterior regions.
- Further investigation is warranted to elucidate the mechanisms behind the observed differences in removal torque and to optimize implant surface selection for enhanced long-term stability.
