Limits...
The influence of 1α.25-dihydroxyvitamin d3 coating on implant osseointegration in the rabbit tibia.

Naito Y, Jimbo R, Bryington MS, Vandeweghe S, Chrcanovic BR, Tovar N, Ichikawa T, Paulo G C, Wennerberg A - J Oral Maxillofac Res (2014)

Bottom Line: Topographical analyses were carried out on coated and uncoated discs using interferometer and atomic-force-microscope (AFM).It is thought that the base substrate topography (turned) could not sustain sufficient amount of 1.25-(OH)2D3 enough to present significant biologic responses.Thus, development a base substrate that can sustain 1.25-(OH)2D3 for a long period is necessary in future studies.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: epartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö Sweden. ; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Oral Implantology, Institute of Health Biosciences, The University of Tokushima Graduate School, Tokushima Japan.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate bone response to an implant surface modified by 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 [1.25-(OH)2D3] in vivo and the potential link between 1.25-(OH) 2D3 surface concentration and bone response.

Material and methods: Twenty-eight implants were divided into 4 groups (1 uncoated control, 3 groups coated with 1.25-(OH)2D3 in concentrations of 10(-8), 10(-7) and 10(-6) M respectively), placed in the rabbit tibia for 6 weeks. Topographical analyses were carried out on coated and uncoated discs using interferometer and atomic-force-microscope (AFM). Twenty-eight implants were histologically observed (bone-to-implant-contact [BIC] and new-bone-area [NBA]).

Results: The results showed that the 1.25-(OH)2D3 coated implants presented a tendency to osseointegrate better than the non-coated surfaces, the differences were not significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: The effect of 1.25-(OH)2D3 coating to implants suggested possible dose dependent effects, however no statistical differences could be found. It is thought that the base substrate topography (turned) could not sustain sufficient amount of 1.25-(OH)2D3 enough to present significant biologic responses. Thus, development a base substrate that can sustain 1.25-(OH)2D3 for a long period is necessary in future studies.

No MeSH data available.


Mean values (non-coating vs coating) in percentage (%) of bone-to-implant-contact (BIC) around the total dental implant.aStatistical significance (P < 0.05).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4219862&req=5

fig4: Mean values (non-coating vs coating) in percentage (%) of bone-to-implant-contact (BIC) around the total dental implant.aStatistical significance (P < 0.05).

Mentions: The mean BIC in percentage was 4.4 (1.9) for the control group (0 M), 8.7 (4.6) for group I (10-8 M), 8.2 (3.3) for group II (10-7 M) and 7.4 (3.8) for group III (10-6 M), respectively. The experimental group showed a trend toward higher bone contact, however the results were not statistically significant (Figure 2, Table 5). The means for NBA in percentage were 16.7 (8) for the control group, 16.5 (4.2) for group I, 15.4 (8.1) for group II and 16.1 (11.1) for group III, respectively, with no significant differences between each of the groups (Figure 3, Table 5). When the effect of dosage was collapsed and statistically compared to the control, there was a statistically significant effect of the vitamin D coating in BIC (P < 0.05) (Figure 4, Table 6). However, no significant differences were found in NBA (P > 0.05) (Figure 5, Table 6).


The influence of 1α.25-dihydroxyvitamin d3 coating on implant osseointegration in the rabbit tibia.

Naito Y, Jimbo R, Bryington MS, Vandeweghe S, Chrcanovic BR, Tovar N, Ichikawa T, Paulo G C, Wennerberg A - J Oral Maxillofac Res (2014)

Mean values (non-coating vs coating) in percentage (%) of bone-to-implant-contact (BIC) around the total dental implant.aStatistical significance (P < 0.05).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4219862&req=5

fig4: Mean values (non-coating vs coating) in percentage (%) of bone-to-implant-contact (BIC) around the total dental implant.aStatistical significance (P < 0.05).
Mentions: The mean BIC in percentage was 4.4 (1.9) for the control group (0 M), 8.7 (4.6) for group I (10-8 M), 8.2 (3.3) for group II (10-7 M) and 7.4 (3.8) for group III (10-6 M), respectively. The experimental group showed a trend toward higher bone contact, however the results were not statistically significant (Figure 2, Table 5). The means for NBA in percentage were 16.7 (8) for the control group, 16.5 (4.2) for group I, 15.4 (8.1) for group II and 16.1 (11.1) for group III, respectively, with no significant differences between each of the groups (Figure 3, Table 5). When the effect of dosage was collapsed and statistically compared to the control, there was a statistically significant effect of the vitamin D coating in BIC (P < 0.05) (Figure 4, Table 6). However, no significant differences were found in NBA (P > 0.05) (Figure 5, Table 6).

Bottom Line: Topographical analyses were carried out on coated and uncoated discs using interferometer and atomic-force-microscope (AFM).It is thought that the base substrate topography (turned) could not sustain sufficient amount of 1.25-(OH)2D3 enough to present significant biologic responses.Thus, development a base substrate that can sustain 1.25-(OH)2D3 for a long period is necessary in future studies.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: epartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö Sweden. ; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and Oral Implantology, Institute of Health Biosciences, The University of Tokushima Graduate School, Tokushima Japan.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate bone response to an implant surface modified by 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 [1.25-(OH)2D3] in vivo and the potential link between 1.25-(OH) 2D3 surface concentration and bone response.

Material and methods: Twenty-eight implants were divided into 4 groups (1 uncoated control, 3 groups coated with 1.25-(OH)2D3 in concentrations of 10(-8), 10(-7) and 10(-6) M respectively), placed in the rabbit tibia for 6 weeks. Topographical analyses were carried out on coated and uncoated discs using interferometer and atomic-force-microscope (AFM). Twenty-eight implants were histologically observed (bone-to-implant-contact [BIC] and new-bone-area [NBA]).

Results: The results showed that the 1.25-(OH)2D3 coated implants presented a tendency to osseointegrate better than the non-coated surfaces, the differences were not significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: The effect of 1.25-(OH)2D3 coating to implants suggested possible dose dependent effects, however no statistical differences could be found. It is thought that the base substrate topography (turned) could not sustain sufficient amount of 1.25-(OH)2D3 enough to present significant biologic responses. Thus, development a base substrate that can sustain 1.25-(OH)2D3 for a long period is necessary in future studies.

No MeSH data available.