Abstract Histomorphometric Evaluation of New Bone Formation around a MagneticImplant in Dogs

(1)

Histomorphometric Evaluation of New Bone Formation around a Magnetic Implant in Dogs

Sung-Moon Baek

¹

, Su-Gwan Kim

¹

, Sung-Chul Lim

²

1

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea

2

Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Chosun University, Korea

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a magnetic field on the new bone formation rate around an implant in the dog mandible.

Materials and Methods: Four adult mongrel dogs weighing about 10~15 kg were used. The first through fourth mandibular premolars were extracted from the dogs. Four weeks after extraction, 4 machined-surface dental implants (2 implants are neodymium magnetic implants and 2 implants are non-magnetic implants) were placed sequentially in the left mandible. Four weeks after the placement of implants in the left mandible, 4 machined-surface implants (2 implants are neodymium magnetic implants and 2 implants are non-magnetic implants) were placed in the right mandible. Four implants were placed on each side, for a total of eight implants per animal and a total of 32 implants overall for the study.

Osseointegration was evaluated using histomorphometric methods.

Results: The experimental group had a better percentage of bone-implant contact than the control group, but no signifi- cant difference was observed at 4 and 8 weeks after implantation.

Conclusion: The magnetic field of the permanent magnet appeared to affect the growth rate of new bone around the implant.

Key Words: bone-implant contact, implant, magnetic, osseointegration

(Implantology 2011; 15(1): 22~30)

(2)

대한구강악안면임프란트학회지 15권 1호, 2011 23

1. Materials

2. Tooth extraction

(3)

Original Articles

3. Implant placement

4. Histology

(4)

대한구강악안면임프란트학회지 15권 1호, 2011 25

Fig. 1. Control group at 4 weeks. Immature, newly formed woven bone formation was observed around the implant surface. New bone com- posed of vague trabeculations partially filled the area outside the implant threads (villanueva osteochrome bone stain, A: ×15, B: ×40).

Sung-Moon Baek et al. : Histomorphometric Evaluation of New Bone Formation

around a Magnetic Implant in Dogs. Implantology 2011

(5)

Original Articles

Table 1.

G

Grro ou up p N NB BF FR R

4 4 w we ee ek ks s 8 8 w we ee ek ks s

Control 31.67±11.82 37.80±7.29

Experimental 44.65±18.00 46.68±13.44

Sung-Moon Baek et al. : Histomorphometric Evaluation of New Bone Formation around a Magnetic Implant in Dogs. Implantology 2011

Fig. 2. Control group at 8 weeks. Immature woven bone was observed around the implant.

Increased amount of new bone filling the area outside the implant threads was demonstrated (villanueva osteochrome bone stain, A: ×15, B:

×40).

Sung-Moon Baek et al. : Histomorphometric Evaluation of New Bone Formation around a Magnetic Implant in Dogs. Implantology 2011

Fig. 3. Experimental group at 4 weeks. Immature woven bone was seen around the implant. The amount and stability of new bone increased compared to those of the control group (vil- lanueva osteochrome bone stain, A: ×15, B: × 40).

Sung-Moon Baek et al. : Histomorphometric Evaluation of New Bone Formation around a Magnetic Implant in Dogs. Implantology 2011

NBFR: new peri-implant bone formation rate (NBFR). Control group: machined-surface

implants. Experimental group: machined-surface implants+neodymium magnets.

(6)

대한구강악안면임프란트학회지 15권 1호, 2011 27

Discussion

Ⅳ

Sung-Moon Baek et al. : Histomorphometric Evaluation of New Bone Formation

around a Magnetic Implant in Dogs. Implantology 2011

(7)

Original Articles

(8)

대한구강악안면임프란트학회지 15권 1호, 2011 29 1. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, et al. Osseointegrated tita- nium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone- to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981; 52: 155-170.

2. Lopez-Heredia MA, Goyenvalle E, Aguado E, et al. Bone growth in rapid prototyped porous titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res A.

2008; 85: 664-673.

3. Korenstein R, Somjen D, Fischler H, et al. Capacitative pulsed electric stimulation of bone cell. Induction of cyclic-AMP and DNA synthesis.

Biochim Biophys Acta. 1984; 803: 302-307.

4. Yan QC, Tomita N, Ikada Y. Effects of static magnetic field on bone formation of rat femur. Med Eng Phys. 1998; 20: 397-402.

5. Krekmanov L. A modified method of simultaneous bone grafting and placement of endosseous implants in the severely atrophic maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995; 10: 682-688.

6. Bassett CA, Mitchell SN, Gaston SR. Treatment of ununited tibial dia- physeal fractures with pulsing electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981; 63: 511-523.

7. Mishima S. The effects of long-term pulsing electromagnetic field stim- ulation on experimental osteoporosis of rats. J UOEH. 1988; 10: 31-45.

8. Rubin CT, McLeod KJ, Lanyon LE. Prevention of osteoporosis by

(9)

Original Articles

pulsed electromagnetic field. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989; 71: 411-417.

9. Bruce GK, Howlett CR, Huckstep RL. Effect of a static magnetic field on fracture healing in a rabbit radius. Preliminary results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; (222): 300-306.

10. Camilleri S, McDonald F. Static magnetic field effects on the sagittal suture in Rattus norvegicus. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;

103: 240-246.

11. Yuge L, Okubo A, Miyashita T, et al. Physical stress by magnetic force accelerates differentiation of human osteoblasts. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003; 311: 32-38.

12. Inoue S, Ohashi S, Kajikawa K, et al. The effects of electric stimulation on the differentiation to the bone. Orhop Res Sci. 1980; 7: 501-507.

13. Matsunaga S, Sakou T, Yoshikuni N. Intramedullary callus induced by weak direct current stimulation: Serial changes in the alkaline phos- phatase activity at the site of electricity induced callus formation. J Japan Bioelect Res Soc. 1988; 2: 67-71.

14. Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 49: 843-848.

15. Friedenberg ZB, Robert PG Jr, Didizian NH, et al. Stimulation of frac- ture healing by direct current in the rabbit fibula. J Bone Joint Surg Am.

1971; 53: 1400-1408.

16. Xu S, Tomita N, Ohata R, et al. Static magnetic field effects on bone formation of rats with an ischemic bone model. Biomed Mater Eng.

2001; 11: 257-263.

17. Ichioka S, Minegishi M, Iwasaka M, et al. High-intensity static magnet- ic fields modulate skin microcirculation and temperature in vivo.

Bioelectromagnetics. 2000; 21: 183-188.

18. Gmitrov J, Ohkubo C, Okano H. Effect of 0.25 T static magnetic field on microcirculation in rabbits. Bioelectromagnetics. 2002; 23: 224-229.

19. Bassett CA. Pulsing electromagnetic field: a new method to modify cell behavior in calcified and noncalcified tissues. Calcif Tissue Int. 1982;

34: 1-8.

20. Kubato K. Effect of electrical currents of alveolar bone defects. J Kyushu Dent Soc. 1982; 36: 64-81.

21. Cho YW, Lee SB, Choi BB. The effect of magnetism (neodymium magnet) on activity of osteoblast. J Korean Acad Stomato Func Occl.

2003; 19: 185-194.

22. Lee SM, Lee SB, Choi BB. Effect of magnetism (neodymium magnet) on growth factor receptors of osteoblast. J Korean Acad Stomato Func Occl. 2003; 19: 87-96.

23. Breme J, Steinhäuser E, Paulus G. Commercially pure titanium Sterinhäuser plate-screw system for maxillofacial surgery. Biomaterials.

1988; 9: 310-313.

24. Kasem B, Lausmaa J. Metal selection and surface characteristics. In : Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, eds. Tissue-integrated prosthe- ses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. 1st ed. Chicago: Quintessence;

1985. p. 99-116.

(10)