AIM: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare two types of implants, i.e. grit-blasted and acid-etched implants (SLActive(®)) with nano-meter-scale hydroxyapatite surface-modified implants (NanoTite™). MATERIAL AND METHODS: For histological and histomorphometrical evaluation, 22 SLActive(®) and 22 Nanotite™ implants were inserted in eleven Beagle dogs. The animals were divided into three groups of healing (A: 2 weeks; B: 4 weeks and C: 8 weeks). Two, 4 and 8 weeks after implantation, the animals were sacrificed and bone-to-implant contact (BIC %), first implant-bone contact (1st BIC) as well as amount of bone (BV) were assessed. RESULTS: For SLActive(®) and Nanotite™ implants, BIC% increased significantly over time. No statistically significant differences in BIC% were found between SLActive(®) and Nanotite™ at all the respective implantation times. Moreover, for the different healing periods, no significant differences for BV between SLActive(®) and Nanotite™ implants were found. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that SLActive(®) and NanoTite™ implants induce a similar bone response after implantation for 2, 4 and 8 weeks in a non-submerged position in the mandible of dogs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al‐Hamdan et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: