TY - JOUR
T1 - Effects of dental implant surface treated with sandblasting large grit acid-etching and femtosecond laser on implant stability, marginal bone volume, and histological results in a rabbit model
AU - Son, Young Tak
AU - Son, Keun Ba Da
AU - Cho, Hoseong
AU - Lee, Jae Mok
AU - Saleah, Sm Abu
AU - Hwang, Jun Ho
AU - Lee, Jong Hoon
AU - Kim, Hyun Deok
AU - Jin, Myoung Uk
AU - Kim, Jeehyun
AU - Jeon, Mansik
AU - Lee, Kyu Bok
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics cc This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS. No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P >.05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P <.05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P <.05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P <.05). CONCLUSION. Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.
AB - PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS. No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P >.05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P <.05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P <.05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P <.05). CONCLUSION. Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.
KW - Dental implant surface treatment
KW - Femtosecond laser
KW - Implant stability
KW - Osseointegration
KW - Sandblasting acid-etching
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105004065394
U2 - 10.4047/jap.2025.17.2.101
DO - 10.4047/jap.2025.17.2.101
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105004065394
SN - 2005-7806
VL - 17
SP - 101
EP - 114
JO - Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
JF - Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
IS - 2
ER -