Share Page:

Volume 17 , Issue 3
May/June 2002

Pages 369–376

Histologic Comparison of a Thermal Dual-etched Implant Surface to Machined, TPS, and HA Surfaces: Bone Contact in Vivo in Rabbits

Robert M. London, DDS, Frank A. Roberts, DDS, PhD, David A. Baker, DDS, MSD, Michael D. Rohrer, DDS, MS, Robert B. O’Neal, DMD, MEd, MS

PMID: 12074452

Purpose: To evaluate the bone contact percentage around a proprietary high-temperature dual-etched (DE) implant surface (Osseotite) versus implants with machined, hydroxyapatite (HA), and titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) surfaces. Materials and Methods: Each implant type was placed in rabbit tibiae of the same animal and assessed at 1 to 8 weeks. Histologic sections were prepared and analyzed histomorphometrically. Results: The DE implant surface achieved higher levels of bone contact percentage than the other surfaces. This enhanced contact level was apparent by 3 weeks and seen at all time intervals except 2 weeks, at which machined exceeded the DE mean. In evaluating which surface outscored the others in each individual rabbit, there was a statistically significant confidence for the DE surface (P < .001). The other 3 surfaces failed to show significance, although the numeric scores for the TPS surfaces were below random expectations and the machined scores were slightly above. There was no correlation between degree of roughness and bone contact percentage. Discussion: Arbitrarily roughening the implant surface may not result in a large change in bone conductivity. The specific texture of the DE process yielded more contact, possibly as the result of better fibrin clot retention and growth factor enhancement. Conclusions: There was no advantage demonstrated in this model to an HA surface over titanium. The bone contact to the rough HA surface scored similarly to that for the TPS surface of similar roughness, and well below that for the DE titanium surface. The DE surface appeared to have an advantage in bone contact percentage, particularly in early healing in a rabbit tibia model. (INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2002;17:369–376)

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us