PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Zablotsky

Publications and source records attributed to M Zablotsky.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1994

Ha coatings in implant dentistry: hype, hysteria, or clinical reality?

Hydroxylapatite (HA) coatings have shown promise due to the enhanced integration of osseous tissues to coated implant surfaces, particularly in sites where bone quality or quantity is compromised. This promise has resulted in a dramatic increase in clinical utilization of HA-coated implants. In spite of encouraging clinical findings, the long-term stability of the hydroxylapatite/bone interface has been challenged. Microbiologically, the HA-coated implant surface may be more susceptible to the formation of bacterial plaque. Additionally, critical variations exist between implant coatings that may affect long-term survival. Despite such concerns, after eight years of clinical utilization, the hydroxylapatite-coated implant surface has not been shown to be predisposed to increased long-term failure.

Animals↗
PubMed1993

HA coatings in implant dentistry: hype, hysteria, or clinical reality?

Hydroxylapatite (HA) coatings have shown promise due to the enhanced integration of osseous tissues to coated implant surfaces, particularly in sites where bone quality or quantity is compromised. This promise has resulted in a dramatic increase in clinical utilization of HA-coated implants. In spite of encouraging clinical findings, the long-term stability of the hydroxylapatite/bone interface has been challenged. Microbiologically the HA-coated implant surface may be more susceptible to the formation of bacterial plaque. Additionally, critical variations exist between implant coatings that may affect long-term survival. Despite such concerns, after eight years of clinical utilization, the hydroxylapatite-coated implant surface has not been shown to be predisposed to increased long-term failure.

Animals↗
PubMed1992

The macroscopic, microscopic and spectrometric effects of various chemotherapeutic agents on the plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite-coated implant surface.

The purpose of this research was to determine the nature of the residual hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implant surface after treatment with various chemotherapeutic modalities, including: citric acid, chlorhexidine gluconate, hydrogen peroxide, tetracycline HCl, stannous fluoride, polymyxin B and a prototype plastic Cavitron tip. Implant surfaces were evaluated macroscopically, microscopically (scanning electron microscopy (SEM)) and spectrometrically (energy-dispersive spectrometry and X-ray diffraction). HA-substrate bond strength and dissolution testing was also performed for surfaces treated with a supersaturated citric acid solution. All treatments left either microscopic residues or a loss of surface roughness when viewed on SEM. A 30- to 60-s application of citric acid left a significantly greater coating thickness than all other treatments, whereas a 3-min application of citric acid removed significantly more HA than untreated controls. Significant changes in Ca/P ratios were seen with most treatments. The clinical significance of this phenomenon is not known. No treatments altered the crystallinity of the residual HA coating. A 1-min application of citric acid did not significantly alter the tensile bond strength of the coating to the substrate. The clinical significance of these findings is not known at present. However, when taken with results from previous studies, it appears that in treating the infected HA-coated implant surface, a 30- to 60-s application of citric acid (pH 1) may be beneficial in detoxifying the HA coating prior to regenerative procedures. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are necessary to evaluate the biological response to citric acid when used to detoxify the infected implant surface.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1992

The surgical management of osseous defects associated with endosteal hydroxyapatite-coated and titanium dental implants.

As more and more patients choose implant therapies it will be incumbent upon the dentists placing, restoring, and maintaining endosseous implants to be armed with the most current information. There is a need for further research to answer the many significant questions in the management of osseous defects associated with dental implants. Some of these questions include: Which grafting materials yield the greatest repair? If resorbable materials (for example, DFDB) are not replaced by bone, are residual defects and peri-implant tissues similar to those which existed prior to osseous grafting procedures? If so, perhaps the combination of a nonresorbable graft like HA with DFDB may yield the wound-healing potential of both materials; for example, osseoinduction by DFDB and the benefits of a radiographic marker and defect filler provided by HA. Can reintegration occur on previously pathologically exposed implant surfaces? Do biodegradable barriers yield significant GTR, and do they resorb predictably? Is complete detoxification of the infected HA-coated surface possible or necessary for regeneration to occur? Which chemotherapeutic modality detoxifies HA-coated surfaces best clinically and at the histologic level? Or should infected HA coatings be removed before attempting implant repair? Are regenerative techniques (for example, GTR) predictable enough to treatment plan for them when we know there will be residual osseous defects after placing fixtures in their most ideal prosthetic position? If so, what defect types resolve most predictably following surgical correction? Should barriers be used in conjunction with grafting when placing 2-stage blade implants to generate bone in the slot preparation coronal to the shoulder of the blade? It is evident from the growing popularity and acceptance of implant therapies that these and other questions will need to be answered to continue the evolution of the science of this discipline. This author would encourage practitioners to keep abreast of the current research and developments in this field as new techniques, materials, and therapies are in a constant state of flux.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗
PubMed1991

Histological and clinical comparisons of guided tissue regeneration on dehisced hydroxylapatite-coated and titanium endosseous implant surfaces: a pilot study.

Fifty-six endosseous cylindrical implants were placed in dog mandibles 12 weeks after the extraction of all mandibular premolars and first molars. Eight implants, four coated with 50 microns of hydroxylapatite (HA) and four grit-blasted and titanium-surfaced, were placed in each dog. Ideal implant placement sites were modified by creating standardized 3 x 5-mm facial dehiscence defects. Half the dehiscences were treated with a modified expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane; the remainder served as controls. After 8 weeks of healing, the animals were sacrificed and measurements made to determine the percentage of dehiscence repair. The HA-coated implants had a mean defect fill of 95.17% and the grit-blasted implants had a percent fill of 82.8% in the guided tissue regeneration (GTR) test group; the control implants demonstrated a mean fill of 55% and 39% in the HA-coated and grit-blasted implants, respectively. Significant differences (P less than .05) were noted between both test groups and the titanium control group, and between the HA test and HA control groups. Histologic evaluation showed significantly greater repair associated with HA-coated implants, as well as significant bone loss associated with clinically exposed membranes. It was concluded that within the limitations of this study, guided tissue regeneration is a viable option in treating defects associated with dental implants.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗