Análise comparativa in vivo do potencial de osseointegração entre três marcas de implantes líderes no mercado europeu / In vivo comparative analysis of the osseointegration potential among three leading implant brands in the European market

Objetivos: avaliar in vivo (histomorfometricamente) o potencial de osseointegração de três marcas comerciais de implantes consideradas como de primeira linha no mercado mundial. Material e métodos: seis coelhos New Zealand, de mesmo peso e idade, receberam 24 implantes de diâmetros similares e comprimentos iguais, de três marcas com tratamentos de superfície variados: G1 (Nobel Biocare, Nobel Replace), G2 (MIS, V3) e G3 (Straumann, Bone Level). Os implantes foram colocados nas metáfises proximais e distais seguindo os protocolos de osteotomia. Após anestesia e sacrífi co dos animais, os implantes foram retirados 45 dias depois para análise histomorfométrica. Ainda, um implante de cada marca foi submetido à análise por MEV (Philips XL30) com diferentes aumentos, sendo as imagens obtidas no modo BSEs. A porcentagem de contato osso-implante entre os grupos foi analisada pelo teste Anova (α=0,05). Resultados: os três modelos de tratamento superficial produziram alta osteocondutividade e boa formação óssea, não havendo diferença entre os valores BIC (p=0,94). Conclusão: as três superfícies testadas apresentaram um grau de osseointegração muito similar.

Objectives: to evaluate by histomorphometrical methods (in vivo) the osseointegration potential of three different implant brands in the world market. Material and methods: six New Zealand rabbits of similar weight and age received 24 dental implants of similar diameters and same length, with three different implant surfaces G1 (Nobel Biocare, Nobel Replace), G2 (MIS, V3), e G3 (Straumann, Bone Level). The implants were installed at the proximal mesial and distal surfaces according the recommend osteotomies. After anesthesia and sacrifice, the implants were retrieved 45 days later for histomorphometrical analysis. Also, one implant from each company was evaluated under SEM BSE mode. The BIC percentage among groups was compared by statistical analysis (One-way ANOVA, 5% level of significance). Results: all three different implant surfaces provided high osteoconductivity and good bone formation, with no significant differences (p=0.94). Conclusion: similar osseointegration patterns were verified among the three tested implant brands.

Effects of different torque levels on the implant-abutment interface in a conical internal connection

Abstract The fit of the implant-abutment interface was assessed by the metallographic technique and by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), using solid abutment types at different torque levels. Forty Morse taper connections and forty solid abutments were used at different torque levels (repeated after 10 minutes) in the following groups (n = 10): 25 Ncm (group g1), 30 Ncm (group g2), 35 Ncm (group g3), and 40 Ncm (group g4). The samples were embedded in a metallographic resin, sectioned lengthwise, and polished. SEM images were used to measure the linear contacts and the fits between abutments and the internal walls of the implant. The overall mean gap and standard deviation were as follows: 9.0 ± 1.36 µm for group g1, 7.9 ± 2.81 µm for group g2, 2.0 ± 0.76 µm for group g3, and 0.3 ± 0.40 µm for group g4. A significant difference was observed in the average fit values between the groups (p < 0.05). The linear area of contact between the abutment and the implant increased as torque augmented. This study demonstrated that higher insertion torque values in a conical internal connection increase the fit (contact) of the implant-abutment interface.