ELSEVIER Ann Anat 186 (2004):69-73 http://www.elsevier-deutschland.de ANNALS OF ANATOMY Histological analysis of bone/heteroplastic implant interfaces in dog tibia* Paulo Laino C~udido 1'2'3'4 and Bruno K6nig, Jr.4 1Department of Anatomy, Methodist University of Silo Paulo, Rua do Sacramento, 230, Sgo Bernardo do Campo, 09640-000, SP - Brazil, 2Department of Anatomy, University of Santo Amaro, R. Prof Eneas de Siqueira Neto, 340, Silo Paulo, 04829-300, SP - Brazil, 3Department of Anatomy, Cruzeiro do Sul University, Av. Dr. Ussiel Cirilo, 225, Silo Paulo, 08,060-070, SP - Brazil, and 4Department of Anatomy, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of Silo Paulo, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes 2415, Silo Paulo, 05508-900, SP - Brazil Summary. This work presents histological analysis of in- terfaces between bone and heteroplastic implants in dog tibias. The study was performed in four tibias (of four mongrel dogs) into which cylindrical implants were in- serted. One ceramic (titania) implant and three grit- blasted titanium implants (with sandblasted and acid-cor- roded surfaces) were chosen for histological analysis of the implant surface/bone tissue interface. The implants remained in the tibias for eight months and none were loaded during this period. The animals were subsequently sacrificed and the samples were processed for analysis. Light microscope analysis revealed a large amount of os- teoid tissue and proximity of osteoblasts and osteocytes to the implant surfaces. In addition, little or no fibrous tissue was observed between the bone and implant sur- faces. The titanium implants presented better osseointe- gration than did the ceramic implant. Key words: Heteroplastic implants - Osseointegration - Titanium - Interface - Ceramic * Master's thesis, presented by Paulo Laino Cgndido to the De- partment of Anatomy, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Univer- sity of Silo Paulo, Brazil. E-maih plcandido@globo.com Correspondence to: Bruno K6nig, Jr. E-mail: brunokon@usp.br Introduction Implants are performed in order to, with the aid of pros- theses, substitute for the partial or total absence of teeth, thus allowing for an adequate alternative treatment of these patients. Subperiosteal implants performed during the 1950s re- sulted to a large percentage in fibrous tissue between the implant surface and the bone tissue. This fibrous tissue hindered osseointegration and consequently compromised the stability of the implants. Osseointegration is deter- mined at the level of light microscopy (Albrektsson and Jacobsson 1987), through which direct contact between the loaded implant and the live bone is observed (Block et al. 1989). In the 1960% these implants fell out of favor and endo- steal implants, in which metal is inserted into the bone tis- sue of the maxilla and the mandible, became the implant of choice. These types of implants achieve greater contact with the bone tissue and better stability than did the sub- periosteal implants. Metals, plastics and bioceramics have all been used as im- plantation materials in the biomedical field. However, tita- nium has been, and continues to be, the material of choice due to its greater compatibility with oral bone tissue. Clinical studies have shown that implantations per- formed in areas of lesser osseous density, such as the pos- terior region of the maxilla, produce a much lower rate of success than those carried out in regions of greater oss- eous density (Parr et al. 1993). Distinct forms and treat- ments of surface implants have been devised in order to 0940-9602/04/186/01-069 $30.00/0