Publications

Detailed Information

Comparison Between Bioactive Fluoride Modified and Bioinert Anodically Oxidized Implant Surfaces in Early Bone Response Using Rabbit Tibia Model

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorChoi, Jung-Yoo-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Hyo-Jung-
dc.contributor.authorJang, Jae-Up-
dc.contributor.authorYeo, In-Sung-
dc.creator여인성-
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-16T00:26:09Z-
dc.date.available2013-04-16T00:26:09Z-
dc.date.issued2012-04-
dc.identifier.citationIMPLANT DENTISTRY Vol.21 No.2, pp. 124-128-
dc.identifier.issn1056-6163-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/82040-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE:: The aim of this study was to investigate whether bioactive surfaces were more favorable to bone than bioinert surfaces by evaluating bone responses around two commercial dental implants.MATERIALS AND METHODS:: Bioactive fluoride-modified implants (Osseospeed) were compared with bioinert oxidized implants (TiUnite). Field emission scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectroscopy, and confocal laser scanning microscopy analyzed the implant surface characteristics. Five New Zealand white rabbits were used to evaluate the bone response. Each rabbit received two implants: a fluoride-modified implant in one tibia and an oxidized implant in the other. Drilling was performed bicortically, and a gap defect was created in the upper cortexonly. Bone-to-implant contact and bone area were measured on the histological specimens 2 weeks after implant insertion.RESULTS:: No significant differences were found in surface roughness (P > 0.05). The gap defects were almost filled with new bone within a period of 2 weeks. The histomorphometry revealed no significant differences in bone-to-implant contact and bone area (P > 0.05).CONCLUSIONS:: Within the limitation of this study, the bioactive fluoride-modified surface may show no superiority to the bioinert anodized surface in early bone response.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkinsen
dc.subject복합학en
dc.titleComparison Between Bioactive Fluoride Modified and Bioinert Anodically Oxidized Implant Surfaces in Early Bone Response Using Rabbit Tibia Modelen
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor최정유-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor이효정-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor장재업-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor여인성-
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/ID.0b013e318249f283-
dc.description.srndOAIID:oai:osos.snu.ac.kr:snu2012-01/102/2008003883/1-
dc.description.srndSEQ:1-
dc.description.srndPERF_CD:SNU2012-01-
dc.description.srndEVAL_ITEM_CD:102-
dc.description.srndUSER_ID:2008003883-
dc.description.srndADJUST_YN:N-
dc.description.srndEMP_ID:A078517-
dc.description.srndDEPT_CD:861-
dc.description.srndCITE_RATE:1.05-
dc.description.srndFILENAME:Implant Dent 201204 21(2) 124-8.pdf-
dc.description.srndDEPT_NM:치의학과-
dc.description.srndEMAIL:pros53@snu.ac.kr-
dc.description.srndSCOPUS_YN:Y-
dc.description.srndCONFIRM:Y-
dc.identifier.srnd2012-01/102/2008003883/1-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share