A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.
Identifieur interne : 005035 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005034; suivant : 005036A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.
Auteurs : J. Lucchini ; J. Aurelle ; M. Therin ; K. Donath ; W. BeckerSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 1996-12.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare surface treatment and bone formation adjacent to 2 screw shaped implants of similar design manufactured by two different companies. The test implants were manufactured by SERF (Decines, France), while the controls were manufactured by Nobelpharma (Göteborg, Sweden). The surface of 3 standard 3.75mm test and 3 standard 3.75mm control implants were investigated by means of scanning electron microscopy SEM, X‐ray micro‐analysis, electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA) and surface topography analysis. There was a microscopic difference on the thread design (SEM). Test threads were flat at the edge, while controls appeared rounded at the edge of the threads. Tests and controls were made of commercially pure titanium, with a regular topography. Results of ESCA indicated that the carbon peak for SERF implants was slightly higher than for the Brånemark implants. 5 test and 5 control implants were installed into the epiphyseal head of the femur of 2 ewes using a standardized surgical technique. In order to stain the bone for histologic analysis, oxytetracycline injections were given 17 and 8 days before the animals were sacrificed. The animals were sacrificed 12 weeks after implant placement. Histomorphometric analysis indicated that there was an average bone to implant contact of 68% for the test implants and 61% for the controls. There were no statistical differences between tests and controls. The preliminary results of this pilot study indicated that early bone healing for the 2 screw shaped implants investigated were similar.
Url:
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070414.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082DLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.</title><author><name sortKey="Lucchini, J" sort="Lucchini, J" uniqKey="Lucchini J" first="J." last="Lucchini">J. Lucchini</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Lyon, France;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Aurelle, J" sort="Aurelle, J" uniqKey="Aurelle J" first="J." last="Aurelle">J. Aurelle</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomaterial Department, Ecole des Mines, St. Etienne, France,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Therin, M" sort="Therin, M" uniqKey="Therin M" first="M." last="Therin">M. Therin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomatech, Chasse sur Rhöne, France;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Donath, K" sort="Donath, K" uniqKey="Donath K" first="K." last="Donath">K. Donath</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Pathology, University Hamburg, Germany;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Becker, W" sort="Becker, W" uniqKey="Becker W" first="W." last="Becker">W. Becker</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Southern California School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology. Los Angeles, California, Private Practice, Tucson, Arizona, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D</idno><date when="1996" year="1996">1996</date><idno type="doi">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070414.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005035</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005035</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.</title><author><name sortKey="Lucchini, J" sort="Lucchini, J" uniqKey="Lucchini J" first="J." last="Lucchini">J. Lucchini</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Lyon, France;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Aurelle, J" sort="Aurelle, J" uniqKey="Aurelle J" first="J." last="Aurelle">J. Aurelle</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomaterial Department, Ecole des Mines, St. Etienne, France,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Therin, M" sort="Therin, M" uniqKey="Therin M" first="M." last="Therin">M. Therin</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Biomatech, Chasse sur Rhöne, France;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Donath, K" sort="Donath, K" uniqKey="Donath K" first="K." last="Donath">K. Donath</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Pathology, University Hamburg, Germany;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Becker, W" sort="Becker, W" uniqKey="Becker W" first="W." last="Becker">W. Becker</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Southern California School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology. Los Angeles, California, Private Practice, Tucson, Arizona, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="397">397</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="404">404</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-12">1996-12</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The purpose of this study was to compare surface treatment and bone formation adjacent to 2 screw shaped implants of similar design manufactured by two different companies. The test implants were manufactured by SERF (Decines, France), while the controls were manufactured by Nobelpharma (Göteborg, Sweden). The surface of 3 standard 3.75mm test and 3 standard 3.75mm control implants were investigated by means of scanning electron microscopy SEM, X‐ray micro‐analysis, electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA) and surface topography analysis. There was a microscopic difference on the thread design (SEM). Test threads were flat at the edge, while controls appeared rounded at the edge of the threads. Tests and controls were made of commercially pure titanium, with a regular topography. Results of ESCA indicated that the carbon peak for SERF implants was slightly higher than for the Brånemark implants. 5 test and 5 control implants were installed into the epiphyseal head of the femur of 2 ewes using a standardized surgical technique. In order to stain the bone for histologic analysis, oxytetracycline injections were given 17 and 8 days before the animals were sacrificed. The animals were sacrificed 12 weeks after implant placement. Histomorphometric analysis indicated that there was an average bone to implant contact of 68% for the test implants and 61% for the controls. There were no statistical differences between tests and controls. The preliminary results of this pilot study indicated that early bone healing for the 2 screw shaped implants investigated were similar.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>J.‐P. Lucchini</name><affiliations><json:string>Lyon, France;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>J.‐L. Aurelle</name><affiliations><json:string>Biomaterial Department, Ecole des Mines, St. Etienne, France,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>M. Therin</name><affiliations><json:string>Biomatech, Chasse sur Rhöne, France;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>K. Donath</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Pathology, University Hamburg, Germany;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>W. Becker</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Southern California School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology. Los Angeles, California, Private Practice, Tucson, Arizona, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>surface analysis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bone</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>histomorphometry</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR070414</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-L84L5WZ0-J</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The purpose of this study was to compare surface treatment and bone formation adjacent to 2 screw shaped implants of similar design manufactured by two different companies. The test implants were manufactured by SERF (Decines, France), while the controls were manufactured by Nobelpharma (Göteborg, Sweden). The surface of 3 standard 3.75mm test and 3 standard 3.75mm control implants were investigated by means of scanning electron microscopy SEM, X‐ray micro‐analysis, electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA) and surface topography analysis. There was a microscopic difference on the thread design (SEM). Test threads were flat at the edge, while controls appeared rounded at the edge of the threads. Tests and controls were made of commercially pure titanium, with a regular topography. Results of ESCA indicated that the carbon peak for SERF implants was slightly higher than for the Brånemark implants. 5 test and 5 control implants were installed into the epiphyseal head of the femur of 2 ewes using a standardized surgical technique. In order to stain the bone for histologic analysis, oxytetracycline injections were given 17 and 8 days before the animals were sacrificed. The animals were sacrificed 12 weeks after implant placement. Histomorphometric analysis indicated that there was an average bone to implant contact of 68% for the test implants and 61% for the controls. There were no statistical differences between tests and controls. The preliminary results of this pilot study indicated that early bone healing for the 2 screw shaped implants investigated were similar.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>4.99</score><pdfWordCount>0</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>0</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>8</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>568 x 787 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>245</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1599</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>4</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.</title><pmid><json:string>9151608</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>7</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>397</first><last>404</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1996</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-L84L5WZ0-J</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>2 - sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>3 - sciences medicales</json:string><json:string>4 - radiotherapie. traitement instrumental. physiotherapie. reeducation. readaptation, orthophonie, crenotherapie. traitement dietetique et traitements divers (generalites)</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1996</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1996</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070414.x</json:string></doi><id>A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>ocr</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/ocr</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D/fulltext/ocr</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-12"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.</title><title level="a" type="short">A pilot study comparing screw shaped implants</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">J.‐P.</forename><surname>Lucchini</surname></persName><affiliation>Lyon, France;<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">J.‐L.</forename><surname>Aurelle</surname></persName><affiliation>Biomaterial Department, Ecole des Mines, St. Etienne, France,<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">M.</forename><surname>Therin</surname></persName><affiliation>Biomatech, Chasse sur Rhöne, France;<address><country key="FR"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">K.</forename><surname>Donath</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Pathology, University Hamburg, Germany;<address><country key="DE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">W.</forename><surname>Becker</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Southern California School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology. Los Angeles, California, Private Practice, Tucson, Arizona, USA<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-L84L5WZ0-J</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070414.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR070414</idno><idno type="supplier"></idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR070414.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.1996.7.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="397">397</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="404">404</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Copenhagen</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1996-12"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>The purpose of this study was to compare surface treatment and bone formation adjacent to 2 screw shaped implants of similar design manufactured by two different companies. The test implants were manufactured by SERF (Decines, France), while the controls were manufactured by Nobelpharma (Göteborg, Sweden). The surface of 3 standard 3.75mm test and 3 standard 3.75mm control implants were investigated by means of scanning electron microscopy SEM, X‐ray micro‐analysis, electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA) and surface topography analysis. There was a microscopic difference on the thread design (SEM). Test threads were flat at the edge, while controls appeared rounded at the edge of the threads. Tests and controls were made of commercially pure titanium, with a regular topography. Results of ESCA indicated that the carbon peak for SERF implants was slightly higher than for the Brånemark implants. 5 test and 5 control implants were installed into the epiphyseal head of the femur of 2 ewes using a standardized surgical technique. In order to stain the bone for histologic analysis, oxytetracycline injections were given 17 and 8 days before the animals were sacrificed. The animals were sacrificed 12 weeks after implant placement. Histomorphometric analysis indicated that there was an average bone to implant contact of 68% for the test implants and 61% for the controls. There were no statistical differences between tests and controls. The preliminary results of this pilot study indicated that early bone healing for the 2 screw shaped implants investigated were similar.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">dental implants</term><term xml:id="k2">surface analysis</term><term xml:id="k3">bone</term><term xml:id="k4">histomorphometry</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change>undefined</change><change>[object Object]</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Copenhagen</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12004"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.1996.7.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="7">7</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1996-12">December 1996</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0039700" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070414.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR070414"></id><id type="supplier" value=""></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2002-06-25"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2002-06-25"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:Header result:Header" date="2010-03-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-12"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="397">397</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="404">404</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Jean‐Pierre Lucchini, 10, quai Saint Antoine, 69002 Lyon, France</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR070414.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 29 April 1996</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.</title><title type="shortAuthors">Lucchini et al.</title><title type="short">A pilot study comparing screw shaped implants</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>J.‐P.</givenNames><familyName>Lucchini</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>J.‐L.</givenNames><familyName>Aurelle</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>M.</givenNames><familyName>Therin</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>K.</givenNames><familyName>Donath</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a5"><personName><givenNames>W.</givenNames><familyName>Becker</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="FR"><unparsedAffiliation>Lyon, France;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="FR"><unparsedAffiliation>Biomaterial Department, Ecole des Mines, St. Etienne, France,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="FR"><unparsedAffiliation>Biomatech, Chasse sur Rhöne, France;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="DE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral Pathology, University Hamburg, Germany;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a5" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>University of Southern California School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology. Los Angeles, California, Private Practice, Tucson, Arizona, USA</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">dental implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">surface analysis</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">bone</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">histomorphometry</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>The purpose of this study was to compare surface treatment and bone formation adjacent to 2 screw shaped implants of similar design manufactured by two different companies. The test implants were manufactured by SERF (Decines, France), while the controls were manufactured by Nobelpharma (Göteborg, Sweden). The surface of 3 standard 3.75mm test and 3 standard 3.75mm control implants were investigated by means of scanning electron microscopy SEM, X‐ray micro‐analysis, electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA) and surface topography analysis. There was a microscopic difference on the thread design (SEM). Test threads were flat at the edge, while controls appeared rounded at the edge of the threads. Tests and controls were made of commercially pure titanium, with a regular topography. Results of ESCA indicated that the carbon peak for SERF implants was slightly higher than for the Brånemark implants. 5 test and 5 control implants were installed into the epiphyseal head of the femur of 2 ewes using a standardized surgical technique. In order to stain the bone for histologic analysis, oxytetracycline injections were given 17 and 8 days before the animals were sacrificed. The animals were sacrificed 12 weeks after implant placement. Histomorphometric analysis indicated that there was an average bone to implant contact of 68% for the test implants and 61% for the controls. There were no statistical differences between tests and controls. The preliminary results of this pilot study indicated that early bone healing for the 2 screw shaped implants investigated were similar.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>A pilot study comparing screw shaped implants</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J.‐P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Lucchini</namePart><affiliation>Lyon, France;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J.‐L.</namePart><namePart type="family">Aurelle</namePart><affiliation>Biomaterial Department, Ecole des Mines, St. Etienne, France,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">M.</namePart><namePart type="family">Therin</namePart><affiliation>Biomatech, Chasse sur Rhöne, France;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">K.</namePart><namePart type="family">Donath</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Pathology, University Hamburg, Germany;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">W.</namePart><namePart type="family">Becker</namePart><affiliation>University of Southern California School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology. Los Angeles, California, Private Practice, Tucson, Arizona, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Copenhagen</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1996-12</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 29 April 1996</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1996</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The purpose of this study was to compare surface treatment and bone formation adjacent to 2 screw shaped implants of similar design manufactured by two different companies. The test implants were manufactured by SERF (Decines, France), while the controls were manufactured by Nobelpharma (Göteborg, Sweden). The surface of 3 standard 3.75mm test and 3 standard 3.75mm control implants were investigated by means of scanning electron microscopy SEM, X‐ray micro‐analysis, electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA) and surface topography analysis. There was a microscopic difference on the thread design (SEM). Test threads were flat at the edge, while controls appeared rounded at the edge of the threads. Tests and controls were made of commercially pure titanium, with a regular topography. Results of ESCA indicated that the carbon peak for SERF implants was slightly higher than for the Brånemark implants. 5 test and 5 control implants were installed into the epiphyseal head of the femur of 2 ewes using a standardized surgical technique. In order to stain the bone for histologic analysis, oxytetracycline injections were given 17 and 8 days before the animals were sacrificed. The animals were sacrificed 12 weeks after implant placement. Histomorphometric analysis indicated that there was an average bone to implant contact of 68% for the test implants and 61% for the controls. There were no statistical differences between tests and controls. The preliminary results of this pilot study indicated that early bone healing for the 2 screw shaped implants investigated were similar.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>dental implants</topic><topic>surface analysis</topic><topic>bone</topic><topic>histomorphometry</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>1996</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>7</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>397</start><end>404</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-L84L5WZ0-J</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070414.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR070414</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Munksgaard International Publishers</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005035 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005035 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:A072FFC1C7A25D5CB003500D9EE463C56165082D
|texte= A pilot study comparing screw‐shaped implants. Surface analysis and histologic evaluation of bone healing.
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |