Zenith Implants

Abstract

Objectives

This controlled preclinical study aimed to evaluate the impact of implant surface characteristics on osseointegration and crestal bone formation using a grafted dehiscence defect model in minipigs. The research was designed to assess the biological response to different surface treatments, focusing on their potential to enhance bone regeneration and stability in challenging defect scenarios.

Materials and Methods

A standardized 3 mm × 3 mm buccal dehiscence defect model was created in minipigs, simulating a clinical situation often encountered in dental implantology. These defects were treated using deproteinized bovine bone mineral, a well-established graft material, and covered with a porcine collagen membrane to promote guided bone regeneration (GBR). Healing was evaluated at 2 weeks and 8 weeks to assess early and mid-stage outcomes.
Three distinct implant groups were compared based on their surface characteristics:
1. Anodized Implants: Featuring an anodized surface designed to influence biological responses.

2. Super hydrophilic Micro-Rough Implants: Treated with large-grit sandblasting and acid etching to create a rough, highly wettable surface aimed at enhancing osseointegration.

3. Hydrophobic Micro-Rough Implants: Similarly prepared with large-grit sandblasting and acid etching but exhibiting lower wettability due to their relatively hydrophobic surface properties.
Key parameters for assessment included:

• New Bone Height (NBH): Vertical extent of new bone formation.
• Bone Area to Total Area (BATA): A quantitative measure of bone density in the defect region.
• First Bone-to-Implant Contact (fBIC): Denoting the initial point of bone apposition along the implant surface.
• Vertical Bone Creep (VBC): Measuring the upward growth of bone along the implant surface.
• Dehiscence Bone-Implant Contact (dBIC): Evaluating osseointegration specifically within the dehiscence defect area.

Results

At both 2-week and 8-week intervals, all groups demonstrated comparable levels of new bone height (NBH) and bone density (BATA), indicating that the total volume and height of newly formed bone were not significantly affected by surface type (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed in other parameters:
However, the surface treatment did have a significant impact on other key metrics:

• First Bone-to-Implant Contact (fBIC) and Vertical Bone Creep (VBC): Both the superhydrophilic and hydrophobic micro-rough surfaces demonstrated significantly better performance compared to the anodized surface. These improvements were evident at both 2 and 8 weeks, suggesting that the roughness and wettability of the implant surface play a critical role in enhancing the early bone integration process (p < 0.05).

• Dehiscence Bone-Implant Contact (dBIC): The most notable difference was observed in the dBIC at 8 weeks, where the micro-rough implants showed significantly higher osseointegration in the dehiscence defects compared to the anodized implants. This suggests that rough, hydrophilic surfaces promote better osseointegration within challenging bone conditions, likely by facilitating faster and stronger osteointegration through enhanced cell adhesion and migration.

Conclusion of experiment.

While the overall amount of new bone formation (NBH and BATA) remained unaffected by implant surface properties, micro-rough implants demonstrated superior performance in terms of osseointegration (dBIC) and coronal bone apposition (fBIC). These results highlight the importance of surface texture and hydrophilicity in enhancing implant stability, particularly in defect areas. The findings suggest that moderately rough, micro-rough surfaces are more conducive to bone integration than anodized surfaces in challenging clinical scenarios.

Discussion and Clinical Implications

The study underscores the critical role of implant surface modifications in achieving optimal outcomes in GBR protocols and dehiscence-type defects. Micro-rough surfaces appear to support faster and more effective bone regeneration by promoting better bone-implant contact and vertical bone growth. While anodized surfaces may offer certain benefits, their performance in defect-specific applications appears to be limited when compared to micro-rough surfaces. Future investigations could explore the long-term stability of these findings and further refine implant surface treatments for clinical applications.

Keywords

Guided bone regeneration, dental implants, implant osseointegration, micro-rough surfaces, hydrophilic implants, implant surface modification, dehiscence defects, bone formation.

. ————————————————————————————————————————– .

The Role of Hydrophilic Implant Surfaces in Osseointegration: Implications for Delayed Implant Placement

Hydrophilic properties in dental implants are primarily beneficial for delayed implants rather than immediate implants. Hydrophilic surfaces are designed to enhance osseointegration by improving the early biological response of bone to the implant. These surfaces promote better cell attachment and faster bone formation, which is especially important during the healing phase in delayed implant placement.

For delayed implants, hydrophilic properties help in accelerating the bone healing process, making it possible for the implant to integrate more quickly into the surrounding bone. This can lead to a faster, more reliable osseointegration, especially in cases where the bone is healing post-tooth extraction or other treatments. The increased wettability of hydrophilic surfaces can promote earlier and more effective attachment of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells), which is critical for the long-term stability and success of the implant.

In immediate implants, where the implant is placed right after tooth extraction, the priority is typically ensuring the primary stability of the implant, as well as preventing infection and complications. While hydrophilic surfaces can still contribute to the initial healing process, other factors like implant geometry, surgical technique, and the patient’s bone quality are more critical in immediate implant procedures.

This distinction is supported by studies that show hydrophilic surfaces can improve osseointegration in delayed placements by enhancing initial healing conditions, whereas in immediate implant protocols, factors like primary stability and bone quality play a more prominent role

Optimizing Osseointegration Through Surface Treatments: Zenith Implants’ Comprehensive Approach

Zenith Implants offers a comprehensive range of implant surfaces to cater to the varied needs of dental professionals. The anodized, sandblasted, and acid-etched surfaces are engineered to optimize osseointegration and clinical outcomes. The anodized surface provides enhanced durability and resistance to corrosion, making it ideal for long-term implant success. Sandblasted surfaces are treated to increase roughness, promoting better initial cell adhesion and improved primary stability. Additionally, acid-etched surfaces provide a microscopically rough texture that further boosts osteoblast activity, supporting faster and more efficient bone integration. Zenith Implants ensures that dental professionals have the flexibility to choose the most suitable option based on patient needs and clinical scenarios.

Versatile Surface Treatments: Zenith Implants’ Advanced Approach for Faster Healing and Improved Bone Integration

Zenith Implants incorporates advanced surface treatments that promote enhanced osseointegration, including hydrophilic properties. Through a suitable combination of sandblasted, acid-etched, and anodized surfaces, Zenith Implants fosters increased wettability, which helps accelerate bone attachment and integration. These treatments ensure that the implants support faster healing times, improved stability, and optimal biological response at the bone-implant interface, just as hydrophilic surfaces have been shown to improve early osseointegration in implantology