Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Do implant surfaces make a difference?

R M Meffert1

  • 1University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Department of Periodontics 78284-7894, USA.

Current Opinion in Periodontology
|January 1, 1997
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Clinical evaluation of anorganic bovine bone xenograft with a bioabsorbable collagen barrier in the treatment of molar furcation defects.

The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry·2002
Same author

Alarms are sounded. Are we listening?

Implant dentistry·2001
Same author

Where's the rush?

Implant dentistry·2001
Same author

I need an implant part! Who do I contact? What do I request?

Implant dentistry·2001
Same author

Ceramic-coated implant systems.

Advances in dental research·2001
Same author

Clinical evaluation of wound healing following multiple exposures to enamel matrix protein derivative in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects.

Journal of periodontology·2000
Same journal

Supportive care of the periodontal patient.

Current opinion in periodontology·1997
Same journal

Treatment of orofacial pain and temporomandibular disorders.

Current opinion in periodontology·1997
Same journal

Breath malodor.

Current opinion in periodontology·1997
Same journal

Etiology, diagnosis, and treatment considerations in peri-implantitis.

Current opinion in periodontology·1997
Same journal

Prosthodontic and periodontal considerations for implant-supported dental restorations.

Current opinion in periodontology·1997
Same journal

Localized bone reconstruction as an adjunct to dental implant placement.

Current opinion in periodontology·1997
See all related articles

This review compares synthetic biomaterials like titanium and hydroxyapatite for tissue integration. Findings indicate differences in soft-tissue attachment and bone-to-implant contact, influencing clinical predictability.

Area of Science:

  • Biomaterials Science
  • Tissue Engineering
  • Orthopedic Surgery

Background:

  • Commercially pure titanium, titanium alloy (Ti6A14V), and hydroxyapatite are common synthetic biomaterials used for tissue integration.
  • Understanding their interaction with soft and hard tissues is crucial for successful implantation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the attachment and adaptation of epithelium and connective tissue to these synthetic surfaces.
  • To determine the nature of the soft-tissue interface (seal vs. cuff).
  • To compare the predictability, retentiveness, and performance of hydroxyapatite, commercially pure titanium, and Ti6A14V regarding bone-to-implant contact, shear strength, bone density, and fixture length.

Main Methods:

  • This study is a review of existing literature.

Related Experiment Videos

  • It synthesizes data on the biological responses to different biomaterial surfaces.
  • Comparative analysis of clinical and biomechanical outcomes associated with each material is performed.

    • Main Results:

    • Epithelium and connective tissue show varying degrees of attachment and adaptation to the synthetic surfaces.
    • The soft-tissue interface can range from a seal to a cuff, depending on the biomaterial and surface characteristics.
    • Differences exist in bone-to-implant contact, shear strength, bone density, and fixture length outcomes among the materials, suggesting varying clinical predictability.

    Conclusions:

    • The choice of synthetic biomaterial (commercially pure titanium, Ti6A14V, or hydroxyapatite) can influence soft-tissue integration and hard-tissue attachment.
    • Each material presents distinct advantages and disadvantages concerning biomechanical stability and biological response.
    • Further research is needed to fully elucidate the long-term performance and optimal application of these biomaterials in various clinical scenarios.