The effect of AAH surface treatment on dental implant: an animal study

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 口腔生物科學研究所 === 99 === Objectives Over the past few decades, dental implant has become a predictable and widely accepted treatment for fully and partially edentulous patients. In order to provide a better environment for chewing, the stability of implant has play an important role. T...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yu-Lun Hsiao, 蕭煜倫
Other Authors: Chun-Pin Lin
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2011
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/42158120938789917908
Description
Summary:碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 口腔生物科學研究所 === 99 === Objectives Over the past few decades, dental implant has become a predictable and widely accepted treatment for fully and partially edentulous patients. In order to provide a better environment for chewing, the stability of implant has play an important role. The term of “osseointegration” which defines as a process in a direct connection between implant and living bone without any soft tissue component interference. Nowadays, the clinical goal of dental implant surgery is the achievement of osseointegration. The higher the degree of osseointegration, the higher the mechanical stability and the successful probability of implants are. It is related to surface design and treatment of implant, so the purpose of this study is to evaluate the different surface treatment on osseointegartion. Material and methods Two different surface treatment implant were used as the experimental group. One is AAH(Acid, Alkaline, Heat) type, the other is SLA (Sand-blasted, Large grit, Acid etched) type. They have the same implant design with different surface treatment. The control group is the Straumann SLA implant. The three type implant have the same width and length which is 3mm x 8mm. We use 18 beagle dogs, each of them were inserted 6 implants, which is included two experimental groups and one control group. The assessments of implants are including clinical evaluation, survival rate, resonance frequency analysis, and photo record. The dogs were sacrificed at the time interval of 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24 weeks for further histological analysis. Results In the survival rate, the AAH surface treatment only lose one implant. On the aspect of ISQ, the value of AAH surface treatment arise in the past weeks, even exceed the control group. On the BIC aspect, AAH surface treatment has resided in the leading position. Conclusion The potential for AAH chemical modification of the implant surface to alter biologic events during the osseointegration process and demonstrate success similar to those observed for implants with an SLA surface