Influence of nicotine administration on different implant surfaces: A histometric study in rabbits

dc.creatorStefani, CM
dc.creatorFilho, GRN
dc.creatorSallum, EA
dc.creatorde Toledo, S
dc.creatorSallum, AW
dc.creatorNociti, FH
dc.date2002
dc.dateFEB
dc.date2014-11-15T06:35:45Z
dc.date2015-11-26T17:18:49Z
dc.date2014-11-15T06:35:45Z
dc.date2015-11-26T17:18:49Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29T00:06:30Z
dc.date.available2018-03-29T00:06:30Z
dc.identifierJournal Of Periodontology. Amer Acad Periodontology, v. 73, n. 2, n. 206, n. 212, 2002.
dc.identifier0022-3492
dc.identifierWOS:000174106500011
dc.identifier10.1902/jop.2002.73.2.206
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/80226
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/80226
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/80226
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1282749
dc.descriptionBackground: This study investigated the influence of implant surface on osseointegration around titanium implants inserted in the tibiae of rabbits administered with nicotine. Methods: Thirty-two (32) New Zealand rabbits were included in the study. After anesthesia, the tibia surface was exposed and 2 screw-shaped commercially available pure titanium implants 7.0 mm in length and 3.75 mm in diameter were placed bilaterally. A total of 128 implants were inserted: 64 blasted with Al2O3 particles (Group 1) and 64 with a machined surface finish (Group 2). The animals were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment subgroups, and daily subcutaneous injections of nicotine were administered: A) saline solution; B) 0.37 mg/kg; C) 0.57 mg/kg; and D) 0.93 mg/kg. In order to label regenerated bone, a 2% calcein green solution was administered by intramuscular injection at 0, 7, and 15 days after implant insertion. After 42 days, the animals were sacrificed and undecalcified sections were prepared. The degree of bone contact with the implant surface, the bone area, and the intensity of bone labeling were measured into the limits of the implant threads. Results: Statistical analysis (2-way ANOVA) revealed no significant difference regarding the effect of nicotine on bone healing around the implants (P >0.05). However, a significant influence of the implant surface on the degree of bone-to-implant contact was detected in groups C (30.13 +/- 4.97 and 37.85 +/- 8.85, for machined and Al2O3-blasted surfaces, respectively) and D (27.79 +/- 3.93 and 33.13 +/- 8.87, for machined and Al2O3-blasted surfaces, respectively) (P <0.05). Conclusions: Although nicotine administration may not statistically influence bone healing around titanium implants, implant surface design may enhance osseointegration after nicotine administration.
dc.description73
dc.description2
dc.description206
dc.description212
dc.languageen
dc.publisherAmer Acad Periodontology
dc.publisherChicago
dc.publisherEUA
dc.relationJournal Of Periodontology
dc.relationJ. Periodont.
dc.rightsfechado
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectanimal studies
dc.subjectdental implants
dc.subjectnicotine
dc.subjectosseointegration
dc.subjecttitanium
dc.subjectHistomorphometric Evaluation
dc.subjectTitanium Implants
dc.subjectDental Implants
dc.subjectSmoking-habits
dc.subjectOral Implants
dc.subjectBone Loss
dc.subjectAnchorage
dc.subjectCotinine
dc.subjectPlasma
dc.subjectCells
dc.titleInfluence of nicotine administration on different implant surfaces: A histometric study in rabbits
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución