Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

±¹³» Á¦ÀÛ Avana ÀÓÇÁ¶õÆ®¿Í Branemark ÀÓÇÁ¶õÆ® ÁÖÀ§ °ñÁ¶Á÷¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±¤ÇÐ ¹× Çü±¤ Çö¹Ì°æÇÐÀû ¿¬±¸

A HISTOMORPHOMETRIC STUDY OF TWO DIFFERENT THREADED CP TITANIUM IMPLANTS

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Ã¶ÇÐȸÁö 1999³â 37±Ç 4È£ p.531 ~ 541
Çѵ¿ÈÄ, Àü¿µ½Ä, ±èÁø, ±è¼±Àç,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Çѵ¿ÈÄ ( Han Dong-Hoo ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
Àü¿µ½Ä ( Jeon Young-Sik ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç
±èÁø ( Kim Jin ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±¸°­º´¸®Çб³½Ç
±è¼±Àç ( Kim Sun-Jae ) - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Ã¶Çб³½Ç

Abstract


The purpose of this study was to compare surface roughness and bone formation around two types of threaded commercially pure titanium implants manufactured by two different companies. The test implants were manufactured by Sumin synthesis dental materials Co. (Avana, Busan, Korea), while the controls were manufactured by Nobel Biocare (MK II, Goteborg, Sweden). To compare bone formation adjacent to newly product with Branemark MK II implant, surface roughness was measured by Accurate 1500M and histomorphometric analysis was done. The results were as follows : 1. Measurement of surface roughness showed that Avana implant had a slightly more irregular surface compared with Branemark implant. 2. In the light microscopic studies, no infiltration of inflammatory cells nor the giant cells wee observed on both groups. 3. In th light and fluorescent microscopic studies, the amount of osseointegration and the extent and the timing of bone formation were similar. 4. There were no statistically difference between two groups in the average bone to implant contacts. Branemark implant ; 67%(SC 23%), Avana implant ; 70%(SD 16%). Comparing with Branemark implant, Avana implant made of CP grade II titanium showed similar good bone healing, formation and osseointegration.

Å°¿öµå

Implant; Histomorphometric analysis; Bone contact; Surface roughness

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed