Chu, Tien-Min GabrielHuang, Sung-EnJohn, Vanchit (Vanchit Kurien), 1965-Kowolik, Michael J.Zunt, Susan L., 1951-Blanchard, Steven B.2011-01-142011-01-142010https://hdl.handle.net/1805/2366http://dx.doi.org/10.7912/C2/1671Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)The objective of this study was to evaluate the in vivo performance of the hydroxyapatite (HA) coating and hydrofluoric acid (HF) etching zirconia (ZrO) implants and to compare the result with titanium (Ti) implants treated in a similar manner. A total of four different implant types were tested in this study. Threaded zirconia implants with HA coating (Test 1) and zirconia implants with HF-treated surfaces (Test 2) were used to compare to the same size of titanium implants treated in identical fashion (control 1 and control 2). All implants measured about 3.5 mm at the thread diameter and 7.0 mm in total length. Each rabbit received two zirconia and two titanium implants treated in the same manner (either HA-coated or HF-etched). The samples were implanted into the rabbit tibias and retrieved at 6 weeks. Upon retrieval, 24 specimens (6 samples for each group) were fixed and dehydrated. The samples were then embedded undecalcified in PMMA for histomorphometry to quantify the bone-to-implant contact (BIC). Another 24 samples were kept in 0.9% saline and were evaluated using removal torque (RT) analysis to assess the strength of the implant-to-bone interface. The histomorphometric examination demonstrated direct bone-to-implant contact for all four groups. HA particle separation from the implants surface was seen in a majority of the HA-coated samples. No signs of inflammation or foreign body reaction were found during examination. Due to the HA particle smear contamination in the ZrO-HA group, no data was collected in this group. The mean BIC at the first three threads of the Ti-HA, Ti-HF and ZrO-HF were 57.78±18.22%, 46.41±14.55% and 47.41±14.05%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found pair-wise among these three groups. When comparing the BIC data with the machined-surface implants, a statistically significant difference was found between the Ti-HA versus Ti implant group and the Ti-HF versus Ti implant group. The mean bone area (BA) at the first three threads for Ti-HA, Ti-HF and ZrO-HF showed statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between the ZrO-HF and Ti-HA groups, favoring the ZrO-HF group. The value of the peak removal force could only be collected from the Ti-HA group during the removal torque test. The mean RT value for the Ti-HA group was 24.39±2.58 Ncm. When comparing the RT result with our pilot study using machined-surface implants, the Ti-HA group showed statistically significant (p<0.05) higher values than the machined-surface Ti implants. The result of this study proves the in vivo biocompatibility of all four implant types tested. In the three measurable implant groups, the histomorphologic analysis showed comparable osseointegration properties in this animal model.en-UShydroxyapatitehydrofluoric acidzirconiadental implantZirconium -- chemistryTitanium -- chemistryHydroxyapatites -- chemistryHydrofluoric Acid -- chemistryCoated Materials, Biocompatible -- chemistryDental ImplantsOsseointegrationThesis