Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 9, 2025
Surgical Bone Implantation Technique for Rat Tibia Models of Diabetes and Osteoporosis
Published on: July 5, 2024
Micro-computed tomography analysis of mineral attachment to the implants augmented by three types of bone grafts: An
Mahdi Gholami1,2, Farzaneh Ahrari3, Hamideh Salari Sedigh4
1Oral and Maxillofacial Disease Research Center, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Background:
This study compared the effect of various grafting materials on the area and volume of minerals attached to dental implants.
Materials And Methods:
In this animal study, 13 dogs were divided into three groups according to the time of sacrificing (2 months, 4 months, or 6 months). The implants were placed in oversized osteotomies, and the residual defects were filled with autograft, bovine bone graft (Cerabone), or a synthetic substitute (Osteon II). At the designated intervals, the dogs were sacrificed and the segmented implants underwent micro-computed tomography analysis. The bone-implant area (BIA) and bone-implant volume (BIV) of bone and graft material were calculated in the region of interest around the implant. The data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at P < 0.05.
Results:
There was no significant difference in BIA and BIV between the healing intervals for any of the grafting materials (P > 0.05). ANOVA exhibited comparable BIA and BIV between the grafting materials at 2 and 4 months after surgery (P > 0.05), although a significant difference was observed after 6 months (P < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons revealed that BIA was significantly greater in the autograft-stabilized than the synthetic-grafted sites (P = 0.035). The samples augmented with autograft also showed significantly higher BIV than those treated by the xenogenic (P = 0.017) or synthetic (P = 0.002) particles.
Conclusion:
All graft materials showed comparable performance in providing mineral support for implants up to 4 months after surgery. At the long-term (6-month) interval, autogenous bone demonstrated significant superiority over xenogenic and synthetic substitutes concerning the bone area and volume around the implant.
