In vivo evaluation of biofunctionalized implant surfaces with a synthetic peptide (P-15) and its impact on osseointegration. A preclinical animal study

Journal article


Publication Details

Author(s): Schmitt C, Köpple M, Moest T, Neumann K, Weisel T, Schlegel KA
Journal: Clinical Oral Implants Research
Publication year: 2016
Volume: 27
Journal issue: 11
Pages range: 1339-1348
ISSN: 0905-7161


Abstract


The overall aim of the study was to investigate a biofunctionalized implant surface with electrochemically deposition of hydroxyapatite and the synthetic peptide (P-15) and its effect on osseointegration.Three modified implant types of ANKYLOS(®) C/X implants were used; (1) machined implants used as negative control (M, n = 20), (2) implants with the FRIADENT(®) plus surface (grit blasted and acid-etched) used as positive control (P, n = 20), and (3) implants with a biomimetic surface consisting of hydroxyapatite and the synthetic 15 aminoacids containing peptide P-15 (BP, n = 40). The implants were randomly inserted in the mandibles of 10 beagle dogs following 4 months after tooth extraction (P1-P4). Three animals were sacrificed 2 and 7 days after implant insertion, respectively, and four animals were sacrificed 6 months post implant insertion. Bone-to-implant contacts (BICs) were analyzed via histomorphometrical analyses at five different region of interests (ROIs); two at the middle part on either side of the implant (ROI 1/4), two at the apical part of the implant at each side (ROI 2/3), and one at the tip of the implant (ROI 5).All implant surfaces showed a high level of osseointegration and osteoconductivity. The cumulative implant survival rate (CSR) was 93.8%, 100% in the M, 85% in the P, and 95% in the BP group. No statistical difference in BICs at ROI 1/4, 2/3, and 5 could be shown between implant types following 2 and 7 days of healing. BIC values increased in all groups over time. After 6 months of healing the BP group showed superiority in BIC in ROI 2/3 (73.2 ± 15.6%) compared to the P (48.3 ± 10.6%) and M group (66.3 ± 30.2%) with a significant difference between BP and P (P = 0.002).It is hypothesized, that the surface biofunctionalization improves peri-implant bone formation and remodeling, leading to an increased bone-to implant contact. However, within the limitations of the study set-up no benefit in the early phase of osseointegration could be established for dental implants with P-15 containing surface in this study.



FAU Authors / FAU Editors

Köpple, Markus
Medizinische Fakultät
Lehrstuhl für Zahnmedizin, insbesondere Mund-, Kiefer-, und Gesichtschirurgie


External institutions with authors

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
DENTSPLY Implants Deutschland


How to cite

APA:
Schmitt, C., Köpple, M., Moest, T., Neumann, K., Weisel, T., & Schlegel, K.A. (2016). In vivo evaluation of biofunctionalized implant surfaces with a synthetic peptide (P-15) and its impact on osseointegration. A preclinical animal study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 27(11), 1339-1348. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12723

MLA:
Schmitt, Christian, et al. "In vivo evaluation of biofunctionalized implant surfaces with a synthetic peptide (P-15) and its impact on osseointegration. A preclinical animal study." Clinical Oral Implants Research 27.11 (2016): 1339-1348.

BibTeX: 

Last updated on 2018-05-10 at 07:21