The effect of a biofunctionalized implant surface on the osseointegration. A histomorphometric study in dogs

Author(s)

Raquel Rezende Martins de Barros

• Document type: Doctoral Thesis
• Press: Ribeirão Preto.
• Institution: Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Odontologia de Ribeirão Preto (PCARP/BC)
• Defense date: 2009-10-30

Examining board members

Arthur Belem Novaes Junior; Paulo Tambasco de Oliveira; Sergio Luis Scombatti de Souza; Guaracilei Maciel Vidigal Junior; Mario Vinicius Zendron

• Advisor: Arthur Belem Novaes Junior

Abstract

Among the different surface properties that influence the bone apposition around implants, the chemical or biochemical composition may interfere in its acceptance by the surrounding bone. The aim of this study was to investigate if a biofunctionalization of implant surface influences the bone apposition in a dog model and to compare it with other surfaces, such as a microstructured created by the grit-blasting/acid-etching process. The mandibular bilateral premolars of 8 dogs were extracted and after 12 weeks each dog received 6 implants, totaling 48 implants in the experiment. All the 4 experimental groups had the same microrough topography with or without some biofunctionalization treatment. After histomorphometric analysis it was observed that the modified microstructured surface with a low concentration of the bioactive peptide provided a higher adjacent bone density (54.6%) when compared to the other groups (microstructured + HA coating = 46.0%, microstructured only = 45.3% and microstructured + high concentration of the bioactive peptide = 40.7%), but this difference was only numeric and not statistically significant. The fluorescence analysis showed that bone remodeling is an active process resulting from the alternation of resorptive and formative activities. A similar pattern of bone remodeling was observed among the microstructured surfaces, biofunctionalized or not; however the addition of an adhesive peptide in low concentration favored the bone formation adjacent to the implants when compared to the other surfaces during the period evaluated. In conclusion the biofunctionalization of the implant surface could interfere in the bone apposition around implants in particular in terms of bone density and different concentrations of bioactive peptide lead to different results. (AU)