Abstract
AIM: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare two types of implants, i.e. grit-blasted and acid-etched implants (SLActive((R))) with nano-meter-scale hydroxyapatite surface-modified implants (NanoTite). MATERIAL AND METHODS: For histological and histomorphometrical evaluation, 22 SLActive((R)) 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((R)) and Nanotite implants, BIC% increased significantly over time. No statistically significant differences in BIC% were found between SLActive((R)) and Nanotite at all the respective implantation times. Moreover, for the different healing periods, no significant differences for BV between SLActive((R)) and Nanotite implants were found. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that SLActive((R)) 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.
