請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/42416
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林立德(Li-Deh Lin) | |
dc.contributor.author | Ping-Han Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳品翰 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T01:13:25Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2010-09-15 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2009-09-15 | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2009-07-29 | |
dc.identifier.citation | References
1. Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindstrom J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969;3:81-100. 2. Brånemark P-I. Introduction to osseointegration. . In: Brånemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T (eds). Tissue-Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence, 1985:11–76. 3. Albrektsson T, Sennerby L. Direct bone anchorage of oral implants: clinical and experimental considerations of the concept of osseointegration. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:30-41. 4. Geis-Gerstorfer J, Weber H, Sauer KH. In vitro substance loss due to galvanic corrosion in Ti implant/Ni-Cr supraconstruction systems. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:119-123. 5. Pilliar RM, Weatherly GC. Developments in implant alloys. CRC Crit Rev Biocompat 1986;1:371-403. 6. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:889-902. 7. Thomas KA, Cook SD. Relationship between surface characteristics and the degree of bone-implant integration. J Biomed Mater Res 1992;26:831-833. 8. Hallgren C, Sawase T, Ortengren U, Wennerberg A. Histomorphometric and mechanical evaluation of the bone-tissue response to implants prepared with different orientation of surface topography. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3:194-203. 9. Wennerberg A, Hallgren C, Johansson C, Danelli S. A histomorphometric evaluation of screw-shaped implants each prepared with two surface roughnesses. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:11-19. 10. Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, Tomlinson MJ, Gavrilovic J, Black J, Peoc'h M. Dissemination of wear particles to the liver, spleen, and abdominal lymph nodes of patients with hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:457-476. 11. Aparicio C, Gil FJ, Fonseca C, Barbosa M, Planell JA. Corrosion behaviour of commercially pure titanium shot blasted with different materials and sizes of shot particles for dental implant applications. Biomaterials 2003;24:263-273. 12. Gotfredsen K, Wennerberg A, Johansson C, Skovgaard LT, Hjorting-Hansen E. Anchorage of TiO2-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:1223-1231. 13. Ivanoff CJ, Hallgren C, Widmark G, Sennerby L, Wennerberg A. Histologic evaluation of the bone integration of TiO(2) blasted and turned titanium microimplants in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:128-134. 14. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B, Krol JJ. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:24-30. 15. Novaes AB, Jr., Souza SL, de Oliveira PT, Souza AM. Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:377-383. 16. Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Iezzi G, Petrone G, Piattelli A. Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:2-8. 17. Wong M, Eulenberger J, Schenk R, Hunziker E. Effect of surface topology on the osseointegration of implant materials in trabecular bone. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:1567-1575. 18. Cho SA, Park KT. The removal torque of titanium screw inserted in rabbit tibia treated by dual acid etching. Biomaterials 2003;24:3611-3617. 19. Park JY, Davies JE. Red blood cell and platelet interactions with titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:530-539. 20. Cochran DL, Schenk RK, Lussi A, Higginbottom FL, Buser D. Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a histometric study in the canine mandible. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;40:1-11. 21. Trisi P, Lazzara R, Rebaudi A, Rao W, Testori T, Porter SS. Bone-implant contact on machined and dual acid-etched surfaces after 2 months of healing in the human maxilla. J Periodontol 2003;74:945-956. 22. Cochran DL, Buser D, ten Bruggenkate CM, Weingart D, Taylor TM, Bernard JP, et al. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:144-153. 23. Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP, Cochran DL, Nolte LP. Removal torque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:611-619. 24. Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, Schenk RK, Denzer AJ, Cochran DL, et al. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res 2004;83:529-533. 25. Anderson PA, Copenhaver JC, Tencer AF, Clark JM. Response of cortical bone to local controlled release of sodium fluoride: the effect of implant insertion site. J Orthop Res 1991;9:890-901. 26. Farley JR, Wergedal JE, Baylink DJ. Fluoride directly stimulates proliferation and alkaline phosphatase activity of bone-forming cells. Science 1983;222:330-332. 27. Cooper LF, Zhou Y, Takebe J, Guo J, Abron A, Holmen A, et al. Fluoride modification effects on osteoblast behavior and bone formation at TiO2 grit-blasted c.p. titanium endosseous implants. Biomaterials 2006;27:926-936. 28. Ellingsen JE. Pre-treatment of titanium implants with fluoride improves their retention in bone. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1995;6:749-758. 29. Ellingsen JE, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Holmen A. Improved retention and bone-tolmplant contact with fluoride-modified titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:659-666. 30. Sul YT, Johansson C, Wennerberg A, Cho LR, Chang BS, Albrektsson T. Optimum surface properties of oxidized implants for reinforcement of osseointegration: surface chemistry, oxide thickness, porosity, roughness, and crystal structure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:349-359. 31. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Roser K, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Oxidized implants and their influence on the bone response. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2001;12:1025-1031. 32. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Resonance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:252-259. 33. Rocci A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J. Immediate loading of Branemark System TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible: a randomized open-ended clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5 Suppl 1:57-63. 34. Jungner M, Lundqvist P, Lundgren S. Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare TiUnite) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare mark III) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two-stage protocol. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:308-312. 35. Daculsi G, Laboux O, Malard O, Weiss P. Current state of the art of biphasic calcium phosphate bioceramics. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2003;14:195-200. 36. Davies JE. Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Educ 2003;67:932-949. 37. Barrere F, van der Valk CM, Meijer G, Dalmeijer RA, de Groot K, Layrolle P. Osteointegration of biomimetic apatite coating applied onto dense and porous metal implants in femurs of goats. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2003;67:655-665. 38. Geurs NC, Jeffcoat RL, McGlumphy EA, Reddy MS, Jeffcoat MK. Influence of implant geometry and surface characteristics on progressive osseointegration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:811-815. 39. Le Guehennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater 2007;23:844-854. 40. De Groot K, Wolke JCG, Jansen JA. State of the art: hydroxylapatite coatings for dental implants. J Oral Implant 1994;20:232-234. 41. Kim Y, LeGeros J, LeGeros RZ. Characterization of commercial HA-coated implants. J Dent Res 1994;73:137. 42. W R, Lacefield. Current status of ceramic coatings for dental implants. Implant Dent 1998;7:315-322. 43. Wheeler SL. Eight-year clinical retrospective study of titanium plasma-sprayed and hydroxyapatite-coated cylinder implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:340-350. 44. Chang YL, Lew D, Park JB, Keller JC. Biomechanical and morphometric analysis of hydroxyapatite-coated implants with varying crystallinity. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:1096-1108; discussion 1108-1099. 45. Lee JJ, Rouhfar L, Beirne OR. Survival of hydroxyapatite-coated implants: a meta-analytic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:1372-1379; discussion 1379-1380. 46. de Jonge LT, Leeuwenburgh SC, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Organic-inorganic surface modifications for titanium implant surfaces. Pharm Res 2008;25:2357-2369. 47. Albrektsson T. Direct bone anchorage of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:255-261. 48. Abron A, Hopfensperger M, Thompson J, Cooper LF. Evaluation of a predictive model for implant surface topography effects on early osseointegration in the rat tibia model. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:40-46. 49. Guo J, Padilla RJ, Ambrose W, De Kok IJ, Cooper LF. The effect of hydrofluoric acid treatment of TiO2 grit blasted titanium implants on adherent osteoblast gene expression in vitro and in vivo. Biomaterials 2007;28:5418-5425. 50. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Albouy JP, Lindhe J. Bone healing at implants with a fluoride-modified surface: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:147-152. 51. Orsini G, Piattelli M, Scarano A, Petrone G, Kenealy J, Piattelli A, et al. Randomized, controlled histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of implants with nanometer-scale calcium phosphate added to the dual acid-etched surface in the human posterior maxilla. J Periodontol 2007;78:209-218. 52. Wang J, de Boer J, de Groot K. Preparation and characterization of electrodeposited calcium phosphate/chitosan coating on Ti6Al4V plates. J Dent Res 2004;83:296-301. 53. Sena LA, Andrade MC, Rossi AM, Soares GA. Hydroxyapatite deposition by electrophoresis on titanium sheets with different surface finishing. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;60:1-7. 54. Barrere F, Snel MM, van Blitterswijk CA, de Groot K, Layrolle P. Nano-scale study of the nucleation and growth of calcium phosphate coating on titanium implants. Biomaterials 2004;25:2901-2910. 55. Barrere F, van der Valk CM, Dalmeijer RA, van Blitterswijk CA, de Groot K, Layrolle P. In vitro and in vivo degradation of biomimetic octacalcium phosphate and carbonate apatite coatings on titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res A 2003;64:378-387. 56. Habibovic P, Li J, van der Valk CM, Meijer G, Layrolle P, van Blitterswijk CA, et al. Biological performance of uncoated and octacalcium phosphate-coated Ti6Al4V. Biomaterials 2005;26:23-36. 57. Urist MR. Bone: formation by autoinduction. Science 1965;150:893-899. 58. Reddi AH. Bone morphogenetic proteins, bone marrow stromal cells, and mesenchymal stem cells. Maureen Owen revisited. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995:115-119. 59. Laub MT, Seul E, Schmachtenberg E, Jennissen HP. Molecular modelling of bone-morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP- 2) by 3D-rapid prototyping. Materialwiss Werkstofftech 2001;32:926-930. 60. Boyne PJ, Marx RE, Nevins M, Triplett G, Lazaro E, Lilly LC, et al. A feasibility study evaluating rhBMP-2/absorbable collagen sponge for maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1997;17:11-25. 61. Hanisch O, Tatakis DN, Boskovic MM, Rohrer MD, Wikesjo UM. Bone formation and reosseointegration in peri-implantitis defects following surgical implantation of rhBMP-2. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:604-610. 62. Hanisch O, Tatakis DN, Rohrer MD, Wohrle PS, Wozney JM, Wikesjo UM. Bone formation and osseointegration stimulated by rhBMP-2 following subantral augmentation procedures in nonhuman primates. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:785-792. 63. Sigurdsson TJ, Nygaard L, Tatakis DN, Fu E, Turek TJ, Jin L, et al. Periodontal repair in dogs: evaluation of rhBMP-2 carriers. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996;16:524-537. 64. Matin K, Senpuku H, Hanada N, Ozawa H, Ejiri S. Bone regeneration by recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 around immediate implants: a pilot study in rats. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:211-217. 65. Sykaras N, Iacopino AM, Triplett RG, Marker VA. Effect of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 on the osseointegration of dental implants: a biomechanics study. Clin Oral Investig 2004;8:196-205. 66. Sykaras N, Triplett RG, Nunn ME, Iacopino AM, Opperman LA. Effect of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 on bone regeneration and osseointegration of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:339-349. 67. Sykaras N, Woody RD, Lacopino AM, Triplett RG, Nunn ME. Osseointegration of dental implants complexed with rhBMP-2: a comparative histomorphometric and radiographic evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:667-678. 68. Cowan CM, Aalami OO, Shi YY, Chou YF, Mari C, Thomas R, et al. Bone morphogenetic protein 2 and retinoic acid accelerate in vivo bone formation, osteoclast recruitment, and bone turnover. Tissue Eng 2005;11:645-658. 69. Bagno A, Di Bello C. Surface treatments and roughness properties of Ti-based biomaterials. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2004;15:935-949. 70. Liu Y, Enggist L, Kuffer AF, Buser D, Hunziker EB. The influence of BMP-2 and its mode of delivery on the osteoconductivity of implant surfaces during the early phase of osseointegration. Biomaterials 2007;28:2677-2686. 71. Mundy G, Garrett R, Harris S, Chan J, Chen D, Rossini G, et al. Stimulation of bone formation in vitro and in rodents by statins. Science 1999;286:1946-1949. 72. Garrett IR, Gutierrez G, Mundy GR. Statins and bone formation. Curr Pharm Des 2001;7:715-736. 73. Skoglund B, Forslund C, Aspenberg P. Simvastatin improves fracture healing in mice. J Bone Miner Res 2002;17:2004-2008. 74. Song C, Guo Z, Ma Q, Chen Z, Liu Z, Jia H, et al. Simvastatin induces osteoblastic differentiation and inhibits adipocytic differentiation in mouse bone marrow stromal cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003;308:458-462. 75. Masuda T, Yliheikkila PK, Felton DA, Cooper LF. Generalizations regarding the process and phenomenon of osseointegration. Part I. In vivo studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:17-29. 76. Cooper LF, Masuda T, Yliheikkila PK, Felton DA. Generalizations regarding the process and phenomenon of osseointegration. Part II. In vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:163-174. 77. Carr AB, Larsen PE, Papazoglou E, McGlumphy E. Reverse torque failure of screw-shaped implants in baboons: baseline data for abutment torque application. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:167-174. 78. Cardaropoli G, Araujo M, Lindhe J. Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:809-818. 79. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B. Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:38-45. 80. Sennerby L, Thomsen P, Ericson LE. A morphometric and biomechanic comparison of titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical and cancellous bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:62-71. 81. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andersson B. Experimental study of turned and grit-blasted screw-shaped implants with special emphasis on effects of blasting material and surface topography. Biomaterials 1996;17:15-22. 82. Donath K, Breuner G. A method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissues. The Sage-Schliff (sawing and grinding) technique. J Oral Pathol 1982;11:318-326. 83. Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Piattelli A, Scarano A. Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:668-674. 84. Ericsson I, Johansson CB, Bystedt H, Norton MR. A histomorphometric evaluation of bone-to-implant contact on machine-prepared and roughened titanium dental implants. A pilot study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:202-206. 85. Moriyama Y, Ayukawa Y, Ogino Y, Atsuta I, Koyano K. Topical application of statin affects bone healing around implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:600-605. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/42416 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 實驗目的:施德丁類藥物主要是一種HMG-CoA還原酶競爭性抑制劑,目前廣泛地運用在治療高血脂症。最近經由研究證實,施德丁類藥物能夠誘導骨母細胞中骨型態蛋白-2(BMP-2)訊息核醣核酸的促進劑產生並且刺激骨頭生長。進一步地,已經有動物試驗報告指出施德丁類藥物對於促進骨頭生長有確實的效果。洛伐施德丁為施德丁類藥物分類中的一種,已經在動物試驗中測出有誘發骨頭生成的能力。本實驗之目的就是藉由骨組織型態學及生物力學測試來比較於表面塗覆洛伐施德丁的人工鈦合金牙根植體在植入狗脛骨後,其周圍骨頭反應與對照組之間是否有所不同。
材料與方法:在本實驗中,我們使用長十釐米、直徑四釐米的鈦六鋁四釩螺旋形人工植體進行測試,並將人工植體表面處理為粗糙面及平滑面兩種不同設計進行實驗。將洛伐施德丁製備為低濃度(20μM)及高濃度(200μM)兩種劑量在植體植入前塗覆於植體表面上。總共植入一百零八根人工植體在九隻實驗用狗的兩側脛骨上,並且分為二星期及四星期兩個時間點進行觀察。在本實驗中將人工植體分為六組:平滑面植體、平滑面植體塗覆低濃度及高濃度洛伐施德丁、粗糙面植體和粗糙面植體塗覆低濃度及高濃度洛伐施德丁進行實驗。 人工植體依照隨機分配並平均植入狗的左右兩側脛骨,每一側脛骨將提供六個位置分別給這六組人工植體植入。植體植入位置將鑽成直徑3.85釐米、深10釐米的洞,並將距離骨頭頂端2釐米處擴大為4.2釐米。放置人工植體時並無初期穩定度。 動物於人工植體植入後兩星期和四星期進行犧牲,脛骨經由解剖並依照植體位置製備成方塊狀,在電子顯微鏡下觀察骨頭與植體表面接觸之百分比以及利用扭力計測試人工植體的移除扭力值。 結果:經過兩星期的復元,於骨組織型態學分析中發現在平滑面植體的組別中,塗覆洛伐施德丁的平滑面植體相對於對照組具有統計上較大的骨頭與植體表面接觸百分比(P<0.05)。而在四星期後的觀察中也有同樣明顯的發現於平滑面植體的組別中,但是在粗糙面植體的組別中,不論經過兩星期或是四星期的癒合,塗覆有洛伐施德丁的植體相對於對照組並沒有表現顯著性差異在骨頭與植體表面接觸百分比上。 在移除扭力測試中,經過兩星期的癒合,塗覆有洛伐施德丁的平滑面植體 (14.17 和 13.00牛頓-公分) 比較於沒有塗覆洛伐施德丁的平滑面植體 (9.63 牛頓-公分) 有統計上較高的移除扭力值。但在粗糙面植體組別中並沒有發現此差異。在四星期之後,不論在粗糙面植體或是平滑面植體的組別之間,比較對照組的植體,塗覆洛伐施德丁的植體並沒有的差異在移除扭力值上。 比較粗糙面植體與平滑面植體兩組之間,在移除扭力測試中,植體植入兩星期或四星期過後,粗糙面植體都具有較高的移除扭力值;而在骨組織型態學分析中,在兩星期後的觀察中,粗糙面植體相較於平滑面植體有統計上較大的骨頭與植體表面接觸百分比,但在四星期後的觀察中,兩者間的差異不再明顯。 結論:由本實驗所得數據指出,在平滑面人工植體植入後兩星期和四星期,洛伐施德丁能夠在人工植體周圍加快骨頭沈積和改善骨錨定效果,而增加的骨頭與植體表面接觸百分比以及移除扭力值能夠進一步地縮短植體植入後癒合的時間。然而洛伐施德丁之使用劑量以及其給藥方式對於骨整合的影響需要藉由更多的體外和體內試驗來釐清。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Objectives
The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors, i.e., statins, are widely used for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. Recently, experimental studies demonstrated that statins induced the promoter of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) mRNA in osteoblasts and stimulated bone formation. Further, the positive effects of statins on bone formation in animal studies have been reported. Lovastatin, a member of the drug class of statins, has the ability to induce bone formation in animal models. The purpose of this study was to compare, histomorphometrically and biomechanically, the bone response to lovastatin coated titanium implants with controls after implantation in the tibia of dogs. Materials and methods Ten-mm-long Ti-6Al-4V screw-type implants, with 4mm in diameter were used in the present study. Two different implant surfaces, machined and rough surface were designed for test. The lovastatin was diluted into a low dosage(20μM) and a high dosage(200μM) for implant coating. A total of 108 implants were inserted in the tibia of 9 dogs and assigned into two healing time periods, 2 weeks and 4weeks. The implants were divided into six groups as follows (nine implants in each group): machined surface (M), rough surface (R), machined surface with low-dose lovastatin (ML) and with high-dose lovastatin (MH) , and rough surface with low-dose lovastatin (RL) and with high-dose lovastatin (RH). Each tibia provided six sites assigned to the six implant groups. Location of different implants was assigned according to a randomized schedules established. The implant site was prepared a hole of 3.85mm in diameter and 10mm in depth. The crestal 2.0 mm of implant sites were widened to 4.2mm. There was no primary stability when the implants were inserted into the prepared sites. The animals were sacrificed at 2 weeks or 4 weeks after implant placement. The tibias were dissected and prepared into the block sections of implants. Then, the percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) was observed under scanning electronic microscope, and the removal torque was measured with torque gauge manometer. Results The histomorphometric analysis showed that, after 2 weeks of healing, among the machined surface groups, the percentage of BIC was statistically greater for the lovastatin coated implants than for the controls(P<0.05) and this finding was less evident after 4 weeks. No significant difference was observed among rough surface groups after 2 or 4 weeks of healing. In the removal torque test, the lovastatin-coated machined groups (14.17 and 13.00 Ncm) had statistically higher torque force than non-coated machined group (9.63Ncm) after 2 weeks of healing. But this difference was not found in rough surface groups. At 4 weeks, there were no remarkable difference in removal torque between lovastatin coated implants and control implants, neither among rough surface nor machined surface groups. In removal torque test, there were higher values of removal torque in rough surface groups than those of machined surface groups at 2 or 4 weeks after implantation. In histomorphometric analysis, the rough surface implants had statistically greater BIC than machined surface implants after 2 weeks, but this difference was no longer evident after 4 weeks. Conclusion The data from the present study demonstrated that lovastatin may accelerate new bone deposition and improve bony anchorage around machined surface dental implants after 2 weeks and 4 weeks of healing. The increased BIC and removal torque force suggest the possibility of a further reduction of the healing period following implantation. However, the influences of the dosage of lovastatin and its mode of delivery on osseointegration need more in vitro and in vivo studies to clarify this issue. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T01:13:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-R95422010-1.pdf: 2553442 bytes, checksum: 4a0c248e0c352995c96ef3402891d71d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
口試委員會審定書…………………………………………….…..i 中文摘要……..……………………………………………………..ii 英文摘要…………………………………………..………………...v 目錄…………………………...…..…………………………………ix Introduction..…...…………………………………………………1 1. Surface roughness of dental implants……………………………..2 1.1 Roughening Implant by Titanium Plasma-spraying Technique...3 1.2 Roughening Implants by Grit-blasting Method………………...4 1.3 Roughening Implant by Acid-etching Technique………………5 1.4 Roughening Implant by Anodization.…………………………..8 2. Osteoconductive calcium phosphate coatings on titanium implant surface……………………………………………………………..9 3. Further trends in dental implant surfaces……………………….. 11 3.1 Nanotechnology and implant surface roughening…………….12 3.2 Biomimetic calcium phosphate coatings on titanium dental implants……………………………………………………….15 3.3 Incorporation of biologically active agents in to titanium dental implants……………………………………………………….16 3.3.1 Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs)…………………….18 3.3.2 Statins and Lovastatin……………………………………...20 4. Evaluation of the interface between bone and dental implants….22 4.1 Biomechanical test……………………………………………22 4.1.1 Pull-out and push-out tests……………………..………….22 4.1.2 Removal torque tests…………………………..…………..23 4.2 Histomorphometric analysis………………………………….24 Study purpose…………...……………………………………...26 Materials and methods……………………………………….26 Animals…………………………………………………………..26 Experimental design……………………………………………..27 Surgical procedure……………………………………………….29 Post-operative care………………………………………………30 Euthanasia and retrieval of specimens…………………………..32 Histomorphometric analysis…………………………………….33 Removal torque test……………………………………………..34 Statistical analysis………….…………….……………………...34 RESULTS………………………………………………………35 Clinical observation……………………………………………...35 Histomorphometric observation and measurements……………..36 Removal torque tests……………………………………………..39 Discussion…………………………….…………………………40 Implant complication…………………………………………….41 Implant surface roughness and osseointegration………………...42 The effect of implant coated with lovastatin in osseointegration..44 The limitations of the present study……………………………..46 Conclusion……………………………………………………...48 References………………………………………………………49 Figures Fig. 1 Two different implant surfaces were designed for test………………………………………..………………..56 Fig. 2 A skin incision about 6~7 cm in length over the medial tibia exposed the medial surface of the tibia. The periosteum was incised and elevated for implantation……………………..57 Fig. 3 The implantation site was prepared by using high-torque handpiece (a) (KAVO, INTRAmatic 7C, modified) and trephine burs (b) with constant water irrigation…………..58 Fig. 4 The preparation of implant site (mm)…………………….58 Fig. 5 Each tibia provided six sites assigned to the six experimental groups. The distance among implants was at least 2–3mm. The implants were covered with resin cap…………………….59 Fig. 6 The tibias were dissected between implant and implant by using a diamond saw(IsoMet® 2000 Precision Saw, Buehler, USA) and got block sections of the implant………………59 Fig. 7 Each implant was cut in the mesiolateral direction and along with the long axis of the implant by using a diamond saw, resulting in two central sections for histomorphometric analysis…………………………………………………….59 Fig. 8 Ground sections of titanium implant with different surface treatment after 2 weeks of healing (SEM, original magnification X25~30)……………………………………60 Fig. 9 Ground sections of titanium implant with different surface treatment after 4 weeks of healing (SEM, original magnification X25~30)……………………………………61 Fig. 10 The percentage of bone–to-implant contact (BIC%) was then calculated and analyzed with the software Image J 1.41. The contact was calculated at 3 different parts: (A) Total BIC; (B) The cortical BIC (red double arrows); The cancellous BIC (blue double arrows)……………………………………..62 Fig. 11 The specimens were connected the abutments(B) and stabilized in a jig(C), then received reversed torque with a torque gauge monometer(15BTG, Tohnichi, Tokyo, Japan ) until the implants started to rotate and recorded the maximum removal torque value…………………………………….62 Fig. 12 (A) Boxplots with outliners for the medians and Q1-Q3 quartiles of BIC% of total implant length in different groups after 2 weeks of healing. (B) The mean BIC% with SD of total implant length in different groups after 2 weeks of healing…………………………………………………...63 Fig. 13 (A) Boxplots with outliners for the medians and Q1-Q3 quartiles of BIC% of total implant length in different groups after 4 weeks of healing. (B) The mean BIC% with SD of total implant length in different groups after 4 weeks of healing……………………………………………….......64 Fig. 14 (A) Boxplots with outliners for the medians and Q1-Q3 quartiles of BIC% of cortical bone in different groups after 2 weeks of healing. (B) The mean BIC% with SD of cortical bone in different groups after 2 weeks of healing……….65 Fig. 15 (A) Boxplots with outliners for the medians and Q1-Q3 quartiles of BIC% of cortical bone in different groups after 4 weeks of healing. (B) The mean BIC% with SD of cortical bone in different groups after 4 weeks of healing……….66 Fig. 16 (A) Boxplots with outliners for the medians and Q1-Q3 quartiles of BIC% of cancellous bone in different groups after 2 weeks of healing. (B) The mean BIC% with SD of cancellous bone in different groups after 2 weeks of healing…………………………………………………...67 Fig. 17 (A) Boxplots with outliners for the medians and Q1-Q3 quartiles of BIC% of cancellous bone in different groups after 4 weeks of healing. (B) The mean percentages of BIC of cancellous bone in different groups after 4 weeks of healing……………………………………………………68 Fig. 18 (A) Boxplots with outliners for the medians and Q1-Q3 quartiles of removal torque in different groups after 2 weeks of healing. (B) The mean removal torque values in different groups after 2 weeks of healing………………………….69 Fig. 19 (A) Boxplots with outliners for the medians and Q1-Q3 quartiles of removal torque in different groups after 4 weeks of healing. (B) The mean removal torque values in different groups after 4 weeks of healing………………………….70 Tables Table 1. The position, surface specification and healing period of each implant…………………………………………….71 Table 2. The implant sample number of each healing period for two tests: (A) 2weeks; (B) 4weeks………………………….72 Table 3. Histomorphometric measurements of the bone-to-implant contact(BIC) in percentage(%) 2weeks after implant placement.—total BIC………………………………….73 Table 4. Histomorphometric measurements of the bone-to-implant contact(BIC) in percentage(%) 4weeks after implant placement.—total BIC………………………………….73 Table 5. Histomorphometric measurements of the bone-to-implant contact(BIC) in percentage(%) 2weeks after implant placement.—cortocal bone……………………………..74 Table 6. Histomorphometric measurements of the bone-to-implant contact(BIC) in percentage(%) 4weeks after implant placement.—cortical bone……………………………...74 Table 7. Histomorphometric measurements of the bone-to-implant contact(BIC) in percentage(%) 2weeks after implant placement.—cancellous bone…………………………..75 Table 8. Histomorphometric measurements of the bone-to-implant contact(BIC) in percentage(%) 4weeks after implant placement.—cancellous bone…………………………...75 Table 9. Results of removal torque(in Ncm) 2weeks after implant placement……………………………………………….76 Table 10. Results of removal torque(in Ncm) 4weeks after implant placement……………………………………………….76 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 塗覆洛伐施德丁於人工植體表面對於骨整合表現之影響 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Effect of Implant Surface Coated with Lovastatin
in Osseointegration | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 洪志遠,陳信銘 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 表面結構形態,移除扭力,骨頭與植體表面接觸,骨整合,洛伐施德丁,鈦六鋁四釩人工植體, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | surface topography,removal torque,bone-to-implant contact,osseointegration,lovastatin,Ti-6Al-4V titanium implant, | en |
dc.relation.page | 76 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2009-07-29 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 牙醫專業學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 臨床牙醫學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 臨床牙醫學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-98-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.49 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。