Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.03923
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Comparação de diferentes metodologias para análise histométrica de implantes: estudo em ratos

Comparison of different methodologies for histometric analysis of implant. Study in rat

Bruna Gazito DIAS; Bruno Luis Graciliano SILVA; Julio Cesar SÁNCHEZ PUETATE; Rosemary Adriana Chierici MARCANTONIO

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.03923 Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.52, e20230039, 2023
PDF
Downloads: 1
Views: 488

Resumo

 Introdução: Diferentes metodologias tem sido utilizadas para avaliação histológica da osseointegração, levando a diferentes resultados.

Objetivo: O objetivo é comparar diferentes metodologias de análise histomorfométrica da osseointegração de implantes com diferentes superfícies, instalados em tíbias de ratos.

Material e método: 24 ratos foram aleatoriamente divididos em 3 grupos (n = 8) para a instalação dos implantes. Esses grupos foram divididos de acordo com o tipo de implante instalado na tíbia: Grupo Hidrofílico - HFL (instalação de implante com superfície modificada por jateamento de óxidos e ataque ácido e mantida em solução de cloreto de sódio), Grupo Hidrofóbico - HFB (instalação de implante com superfície modificada por jateamento de óxidos e ataque ácido) e Grupo Usinado - U (instalação de implante com superfície usinada). No período de 45 dias após os procedimentos cirúrgicos de instalação dos implantes, os animais foram submetidos à eutanásia, e as tíbias foram removidas, sendo realizado o processamento histológico para amostras não descalcificadas. Após a obtenção das lâminas, foi realizada a análise histomorfométrica para avaliar as porcentagens de contato osso-implante (% BIC) e da área óssea entre as espiras (% BBT). As mensurações foram realizadas em duas diferentes regiões: 1) as roscas do implante na região do osso cortical e 2) todas as roscas do implante inseridas no osso (cortical e medular). A análise estatística foi feita por meio de ANOVA One-Way, seguida pelo teste de Tukey para análise inferencial dos dados.

Resultado: Quando o BIC e o BBT foram analisados de forma independente nas regiões cortical e trabecular/total, observou-se uma diferença no comportamento histológico dos implantes de acordo com o tratamento de superfície. Os implantes HFL apresentaram BIC (%) trabecular 16,85% maior (p = 0,02) do que os implantes HFB e 26,12% maior (p ≤ 0,0001) do que os implantes usinados. Contudo, a região cortical de todos os grupos apresentou valores de BIC cortical significativamente maiores ao redor dos implantes, independentemente da superfície.

Conclusão: Os resultados obtidos demonstraram que a formação óssea peri-implantar foi superior nas análises realizadas apenas em osso cortical, se comparados aos valores obtidos na mensuração total (osso cortical somado ao medular). Também foi possível observar que, dentro da mesma superfície, os valores de BIC (%) foram superiores em osso cortical. Em relação às limitações do estudo, pode-se concluir que diferentes metodologias de análise histométrica da osseointegração ao redor de diferentes superfícies de implantes instalados em tíbias de ratos podem interferir nos resultados de osseointegração, independentemente da superfície analisada.

Palavras-chave

Osso, implante dentário, histometria

Abstract

Introduction: Different methodologies were used for histological evaluation of osseointegration, leading to different results.

Objective: The objective is to compare different methodologies for histomorphometric analysis of the osseointegration of implants with different surfaces, installed in rat tibias.

Material and method: Twenty-four rats were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=8) for implant installation. These groups were divided according to the type of implant that will be installed in the tibia: Hydrophilic Group (installation of an implant with a surface modified by oxide blasting and acid attack and maintained in a sodium chloride solution), Hydrophobic Group (installation of an implant with surface modified by oxide blasting and acid attack) and Machined Group (implant installation with machined surface). Within 45 days after the surgical procedures to install the implants, the animals were euthanized and the tibias were removed, and histological processing was carried out for non-decalcified samples. After obtaining the slides, histomorphometric analysis was performed to evaluate the percentages of bone-implant contact (%BIC) and the bone area between the turns (%BBT). Measurements were carried out in two different regions: 1) the implant threads in the cortical bone region and 2) all implant threads inserted into the bone (cortical and medullary). Statistical analysis was performed using One-Way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test for inferential data analysis.

Result: The BIC and BBT were analyzed independently in the cortical and trabecular/total regions, a difference was observed in the histological behavior of the implants according to the surface treatment. HFL implants showed trabecular BIC (%) 16.85% higher (p=0.02) than HFB implants and 26.12% higher (p≤0.0001) than machined implants. However, the cortical region of all groups showed significantly higher cortical BIC values around the implants, regardless of the surface.

Conclusion: the results obtained demonstrated that peri-implant bone formation was superior in analyzes carried out only on cortical bone, compared to the values obtained in the total measurement (cortical bone plus medullary bone). It was also possible to observe that, even within the same surface, the BIC(%) values were higher in cortical bone. Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that different methodologies for histometric analysis of osseointegration around different surfaces of implants installed in rat tibias can interfere with the results of osseointegration regardless of the surface analyzed.

Keywords

Bone, dental implants, histometric

References

1 Galindo-Moreno P, Nilsson P, King P, Becktor J, Speroni S, Schramm A, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of early loaded narrow diameter implants - 1-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 May;23(5):609-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02254.x. PMid:22093047.

2 Papaspyridakos P, Mokti M, Chen CJ, Benic GI, Gallucci GO, Chronopoulos V. Implant and prosthodontic survival rates with implant fixed complete dental prostheses in the edentulous mandible after at least 5 years: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Oct;16(5):705-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12036. PMid:23311617.

3 Shalabi MM, Wolke JG, de Ruijter AJ, Jansen JA. Histological evaluation of oral implants inserted with different surgical techniques into the trabecular bone of goats. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Aug;18(4):489-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01362.x. PMid:17517059.

4 Cohen O, Ormianer Z, Tal H, Rothamel D, Weinreb M, Moses O. Differences in crestal bone-to-implant contact following an under-drilling compared to an over-drilling protocol. A study in the rabbit tibia. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Dec;20(9):2475-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1765-8. PMid:26931772.

5 Şimşek S, Özeç İ, Kürkçü M, Benlidayı E. Histomorphometric evaluation of bone formation in peri-implant defects treated with different regeneration techniques: an experimental study in a rabbit model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Sep;74(9):1757-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.05.026. PMid:27351696.

6 Gomes-Ferreira PHS, Oliveira D, Frigério PB, Batista FRs, Grandfield K, Okamoto R. Teriparatide improves microarchitectural characteristics of peri-implant bone in orchiectomized rats. Osteoporos Int. 2020 Sep;31(9):1807-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05431-y. PMid:32383065.

7 Trento G, Carvalho PHA, Reis ENRC, Spin-Neto R, Bassi APF, Pereira-Filho VA. Bone formation around two titanium implant surfaces placed in bone defects with and without a bone substitute material: a histological, histomorphometric, and micro-computed tomography evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020 Apr;22(2):177-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12880. PMid:32090450.

8 Steigenga J, Al-Shammari K, Misch C, Nociti FH Jr, Wang HL. Effects of implant thread geometry on percentage of osseointegration and resistance to reverse torque in the tibia of rabbits. J Periodontol. 2004 Sep;75(9):1233-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2004.75.9.1233. PMid:15515339.

9 Trisi P, Berardini M, Falco A, Podaliri Vulpiani M. New Osseodensification implant site preparation method to increase bone density in low-density bone: in vivo evaluation in sheep. Implant Dent. 2016 Feb;25(1):24-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000358. PMid:26584202.

10 Zhou W, Kuderer S, Liu Z, Ulm C, Rausch-Fan X, Tangl S. Peri-implant bone remodeling at the interface of three different implant types: a histomorphometric study in mini-pigs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Nov;28(11):1443-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13009. PMid:28213949.

11 Folkman M, Becker A, Meinster I, Masri M, Ormianer Z. Comparison of bone-to-implant contact and bone volume around implants placed with or without site preparation: a histomorphometric study in rabbits. Sci Rep. 2020 Jul;10(1):12446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69455-4. PMid:32709971.

12 Zhong W, Li J, Hu C, Quan Z, Jiang D. Enhancement of the bone-implant interface by applying a plasma-sprayed titanium coating on nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide66 implants in a rabbit model. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):19971. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99494-4. PMid:34620967.

13 Bergamo ETP, Witek L, Ramalho I, Lopes ACO, Nayak VV, Bonfante EA, et al. Bone healing around implants placed in subjects with metabolically compromised systemic conditions. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2023 Sep;111(9):1664-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.35264. PMid:37184298.

14 Soares PBF, Moura CCG, Claudino M, Carvalho VF, Rocha FS, Zanetta-Barbosa D. Influence of implant surfaces on osseointegration: a histomorphometric and implant stability study in rabbits. Braz Dent J. 2015 Oct;26(5):451-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201300411. PMid:26647927.

15 Mavrogenis AF, Dimitriou R, Parvizi J, Babis GC. Biology of implant osseointegration. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2009 Apr-Jun;9(2):61-71. PMid:19516081.

16 Cano-Sánchez J, Campo-Trapero J, Gonzalo-Lafuente JC, Moreno-López LA, Bascones-Martínez A. Undecalcified bone samples: a description of the technique and its utility based on the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2005 Apr;10(Suppl 1):E74-87. PMid:15800470.
 

Submitted date:
10/26/2023

Accepted date:
10/30/2023

6560ad2aa953956c2d6fb7d2 rou Articles
Links & Downloads
1807-2577 (Electronic)
Rev. odontol. UNESP ©2024 All rights reserved.

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections