Lee Jungwon, Li Ling, Song Hyun-Young, Son Min-Jung, Lee Yong-Moo, Koo Ki-Tae
Department of Periodontology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
One-Stop Specialty Center, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2022 Aug;52(4):338-350. doi: 10.5051/jpis.2105720286.
Various studies have investigated 3-dimensional (3D)-printed implants using Ti-6Al-4V powder; however, multi-root 3D-printed implants have not been fully investigated. The purpose of this study was to explore the stability of multirooted 3D-printed implants with lattice and solid structures. The secondary outcomes were comparisons between the 2 types of 3D-printed implants in micro-computed tomographic and histological analyses.
Lattice- and solid-type 3D-printed implants for the left and right mandibular third premolars in beagle dogs were fabricated. Four implants in each group were placed immediately following tooth extraction. Implant stability measurement and periapical X-rays were performed every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. Peri-implant bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV) and bone mineral density (BMD) were measured by micro-computed tomography. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) were measured in histomorphometric analyses.
All 4 lattice-type 3D-printed implants survived. Three solid-type 3D-printed implants were removed before the planned sacrifice date due to implant mobility. A slight, gradual increase in implant stability values from implant surgery to 4 weeks after surgery was observed in the lattice-type 3D-printed implants. The marginal bone change of the surviving solid-type 3D-printed implant was approximately 5 mm, whereas the value was approximately 2 mm in the lattice-type 3D-printed implants. BV/TV and BMD in the lattice type 3D-printed implants were similar to those in the surviving solid-type implant. However, BIC and BAFO were lower in the surviving solid-type 3D-printed implant than in the lattice-type 3D-printed implants.
Within the limits of this preclinical study, 3D-printed implants of double-rooted teeth showed high primary stability. However, 3D-printed implants with interlocking structures such as lattices might provide high secondary stability and successful osseointegration.
多项研究已对使用Ti-6Al-4V粉末的三维(3D)打印种植体进行了调查;然而,多根3D打印种植体尚未得到充分研究。本研究的目的是探讨具有晶格和实体结构的多根3D打印种植体的稳定性。次要结果是在微观计算机断层扫描和组织学分析中对两种类型的3D打印种植体进行比较。
为比格犬的左右下颌第三前磨牙制作晶格型和实体型3D打印种植体。每组4颗种植体在拔牙后立即植入。在12周内每2周进行一次种植体稳定性测量和根尖周X线检查。通过微观计算机断层扫描测量种植体周围骨体积/组织体积(BV/TV)和骨密度(BMD)。在组织形态计量分析中测量骨与种植体接触(BIC)和骨面积分数占有率(BAFO)。
所有4颗晶格型3D打印种植体均存活。3颗实体型3D打印种植体因种植体松动在计划的处死日期前被取出。在晶格型3D打印种植体中,观察到从种植手术到术后4周种植体稳定性值略有逐渐增加。存活的实体型3D打印种植体的边缘骨变化约为5mm,而晶格型3D打印种植体的值约为2mm。晶格型3D打印种植体的BV/TV和BMD与存活的实体型种植体相似。然而,存活的实体型3D打印种植体的BIC和BAFO低于晶格型3D打印种植体。
在本临床前研究的范围内,双根牙的3D打印种植体显示出较高的初期稳定性。然而,具有晶格等互锁结构的3D打印种植体可能提供较高的二期稳定性和成功的骨整合。