• Submission Form (PDF)
• Author Guidelines (PDF)
• Submit

• Accepted Manuscripts

Back

Volume 14 , Issue 2
March/April 1999
Pages 271–277

Evaluation of Combinations of Titanium, Zirconia, and Alumina Implants with 2 Bone Fillers in the Dog

Jean-Hermann Dubruille, MD, Eric Viguier, PhD, Giles Le Naour, Technician, Marie-Thérèse Dubruille, MD, Michèle Auriol, MD, Doctor, Yves Le Charpentier, MD

PMID: 10212545

The quality of the tissue-implant interface was evaluated using light and scanning electron microscopy with morphometric analysis. Nine dogs were implanted with 3 types of dental implants (titanium, zirconia, or alumina). A total of 24 dental implants was placed in mandibular bone previously filled with coral carbonate calcium (corail) or hydroxyapatite. The study results in breaking the concept of osseointegration into 2 phases: “osseocoaptation,” which concerns only the interface (physical contact between the implants and the bone without interpenetration process), and “osseocoalescence,” which relies on an interpenetration of the bioactive material, which almost entirely disappears, being substituted by newly formed bone. There was no significant statistical difference between the 3 types of implants. Both fillings showed good ossecoalescence properties. However, hydroxyapatite led to fibrous encystment, preventing osseocoaptation of implants, in contrast with calcium carbonate filling. (Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:271–277) Key words: bone filler materials, implants, osseocoalescence, osseocoaptation

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 

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.