Osseointegration and stability of a modified sand-blasted acid-etched implant: an experimental pilot study in sheep

Objective: The aim of this pilot study was to compare the early‐term osseointegration characteristics of standard (SLA) and modified sand‐blasted and acid‐etched (modSLA) implants in an experimental animal model. Material and methods: A total of 30 SLA and modSLA implants were placed to the tibiae of three sheep and the insertion torque value (ITV) and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) measurements were performed. RFA measurement was repeated on 3 and 6 weeks healed implants after which the animals were sacrificed for histomorphometric analysis. Bone‐to‐implant contact was assessed on the non‐decalcified sections. Six weeks healed implants were also subjected to the reverse torque test (RTT). Results were analyzed by the Friedman test, Kruskal–Wallis test and Spearman rank correlation test. Results: All implants reached to a strong primary stability with a mean 36.13 ± 2.47 and 35.47 ± 2.85 N/cm ITV. In the surgical stage, RFA values for SLA and modSLA implants were found to be 72.27 ± 3.17 and 71.6 ± 2.87, respectively. After 3 weeks of healing, mean BIC% (80.64 ± 13.89%) and RFA value (76.8 ± 1.14) of modSLA implants were significantly higher (P=0.0002) than that of SLA implants (64.39 ± 21.2 BIC% and 74.2 ± 4.76 RFA). However, no statistically significant difference between SLA and modSLA implants was recorded after 6 weeks of healing. Both implants revealed similar results in the RTT test (115.2 ± 4.14 and 117 ± 4.47 N/cm for SLA and modSLA implants, respectively). No correlation was found between RFA and BIC%. Conclusion: Within the limits of this pilot study, it can be concluded that modSLA implants achieve a higher bone contact and stability at earlier time points when compared with SLA implants. To cite this article:
Abdel‐Haq J, Karabuda CZ, Arιsan V, Mutlu Z, Kürkçü M. Osseointegration and stability of a modified sand‐blasted acid‐etched implant: an experimental pilot study in sheep.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22 , 2011; 265–274.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01990.x