添加製造 vs. 市販の歯科インプラントの周術期インプラント周囲炎の比較。3Dプリントインプラントは骨結合に有望である。

The global increase in the use of dental implants also increases treatment-related complications. Peri-implantitis is a matter of concern at this stage. This study aimed to compare the behavior of an additive manufacturing implant with commercially available implants with different surface treatments, exposed or not to a peri-implantitis challenge. Eighty implants with three different surfaces (Straumann BLT [A], Noble Biocare Active [B], Plenum 3D printed titanium implants test [C], and Plenum 3D printed titanium implants served as a negative control [D]) were placed into male minipigs (Minipig Br1) mandibles on both sides. Three months after implant placement, peri-implantitis was induced with cotton ligatures in one side of the mandible, and an intraosseous implant served as a control on both sides. Histometric analysis of marginal bone loss did not present a statistical difference between groups (p>0,05), but regarding Bone to Implant Contact (BIC), the B group presented the highest percentage. The additive manufacturing implant performed like commercially available implants in all the performed analyses, suggesting that additive manufacturing could be an alternative for the fabrication of osseointegrated implants.