Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful dental implant treatment is directly related to osseointegration. In achieving osseointegration, the surface property of the implant is of great importance. Sandblasting is the most commonly used basic method for modifying the surface. Many companies use different sand particles for surface roughening and claim their sand is the best. This leads clinicians to mix their minds in product selection. In this study, we tried to find the appropriate sand material by working objectively without praising any brand. We believe that the results of the study will help clinicians choose the right dental implant. In this study, machined-surfaced implants and implants sandblasted with Aluminum oxide (Al(2)O(3)), Titanium dioxide (TiO(2)) and Silicon dioxide (SiO(2)) were compared via biomechanical testing. METHODS: For the study, four 2 year-old sheep, weighing 45 kilograms (kg), were used. Eight implants (Al(2)O(3), TiO(2), and SiO(2) sandblasted implants and machined-surfaced implants), each with different surface characteristics, were inserted into the bilateral tibia of each sheep under general anesthesia. Results of the initial Resonance Frequency Analysis (RFA) were recorded just after implant insertion. The sheep were then randomly divided into two groups, each with 2 sheep, to undergo either a 1-month or a 3-month assessment. At the end of the designated evaluation period, RFA and removal torque tests were performed. RESULTS: Although there were no statistically significant differences between the groups, the implants sandblasted with Al(2)O(3) showed a higher Implant Stability Quotient (ISQ) and removal torque value at the end of the 1st and 3rd month. CONCLUSIONS: In short, the results of the study demonstrate that Aluminum oxide is superior to other sand particles.