Received 07/11/2023
DOI: 10.35556/idr-2024-1(106)16-20

Experimental evaluation of the effectiveness of Russian dental implants with modified surface
Fedchishin O.V. 2, Ushakov R.V. 1,2
1Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Further Professional Education «Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education» of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
125993, Russia, Moscow, Barrikadnaya St., 2/1, Bld.1
2Irkutsk State Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education – Branch Campus of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Further Professional Education «Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education» of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
664049, Russia, Irkutsk, Yubileynyy Mikroraion, 100.

E-mail address: mr.fedchishin@mail.ru

Summary
In an experiment on animals, the effectiveness of osseointegration of DIF Dental Implants Classic Heavy implants (manufactured in the Russian Federation) was evaluated. The assessment was carried out at 30 and 60 days after the implantation of standard structures into the proximal condyle of the right tibia of rabbits with an assessment of implant stability and morphological changes in the process of osseointegration. It has been established that modification of the implant surface with calcium hydroxyapatite with characteristics close to the phase composition of bone matrix hydroxyapatite increases the efficiency of osseointegration, which is manifested both in higher indicators of secondary stability of implants and more intensive processes of bone tissue regeneration in the periimplantation zone.

Keywords: dental implants, osseointegration, calcium hydroxyapatite coating.

For citation: Fedchishin O.V., Ushakov R.V. Experimental evaluation of the effectiveness of Russian dental implants with modified surface. Stomatology for All / Int. Dental Review. 2024; no.1(106): 16—20 (in Russian). doi: 10.35556/idr-2024-1(106)16-20
References
1.Kulakov A.A. Dental implantation: national guidelines. 2018; 400 p. (in Russian).
2. Kulakov A.A. The influence of various methods of sur-face modification of dental implants on their integration potential. Dentistry. 2012; no.6: 75–77 (in Russian).
3.Kulakov A.A. Comparative assessment of the surface composition, shape of the dental implant and the re-sults of energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Clinical dentistry. 2019; no.1 (89): 58—62 (in Russian).
4. Barberi J., Spriano S. Titanium and Protein Adsorption: An Overview of Mechanisms and Effects of Surface Features. Materials. 2021; 14: 1590. doi: 10.3390/ma14071590
5. Inchingolo A.D., Inchingolo A.M., Bordea I.R., Xhajanka E., Romeo D.M., Romeo M., et al. The Effectiveness of Osseodensification Drilling Protocol for Implant Site Osteotomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis. Materials. 2021; 14: 1147. doi: 10.3390/ma14051147
6. Hazballa D., Inchingolo A., Inchingolo A.M., Malcangi G., Santacroce L., Minetti E., et al. The Effectiveness of Autologous Demineralized Tooth Graft for the Bone Ridge Preservation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents. 2021; 35: 283—294. doi: 10.23812/21-2supp1-28
7. Palermo A., Giannotti L., Di Chiara Stanca B., Ferrante F., Gnoni A., Nitti P., et al. Use of CGF in Oral and Implant Surgery: From Laboratory Evidence to Clinical Evaluation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022; 23: 15164. doi: 10.3390/ijms232315164
8. Ivanova V., Chenchev I., Zlatev S., Mijiritsky E. Correlation between Primary, Secondary Stability, Bone Density, Percentage of Vital Bone Formation and Implant Size. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18: 6994. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136994
9. Rausch M.A., Shokoohi-Tabrizi H., Wehner C., Pippenger B.E., Wagner R.S., Ulm C., et al. Impact of Implant Surface Material and Microscale Roughness on the Initial Attachment and Proliferation of Primary Human Gingival Fibroblasts. Biology. 2021; 10: 356. doi: 10.3390/biology10050356
10. Smeets R., Stadlinger B., Schwarz F., Beck-Broichsitter B., Jung O., Precht C., et al. Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration. BioMed Res. Int. 2016; 2016: 6285620. doi: 10.1155/2016/6285620
11. Bereznai M., Pelsoczi I., Toth Z., Turzo K., Radnai M., Bor Z., et al. Surface Modifications Induced by Ns and Sub-Ps Excimer Laser Pulses on Titanium Implant Material. Biomaterials. 2003; 24: 4197—4203. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00318-1
12. Zhou J., Wang X., Zhao L. Antibacterial, Angiogenic, and Osteogenic Activities of Ca, P, Co, F, and Sr Compound Doped Titania Coatings with Different Sr Content. Sci. Rep. 2019; 9: 14203. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50496-3
13. Gao X., Fraulob M., Haiat G. Biomechanical Behaviours of the Bone–Implant Interface: A Review. J. R. Soc. Interface. 2019; 16: 20190259. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2019.0259
14. Jeon J.-H., Kim M.-J., Yun P.-Y., Jo D.-W., Kim Y.-K. Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Two Types of Sandblasted with Large-Grit and Acid-Etched Surface Implants with Different Surface Roughness. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022; 48: 225—231. doi: 10.5125/jkaoms.2022.48.4.225