PMC:5494313 / 1845-3373 JSONTXT

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"28680714-12755774-64163108","span":{"begin":752,"end":753},"obj":"12755774"},{"id":"28680714-8769677-64163109","span":{"begin":752,"end":754},"obj":"8769677"},{"id":"28680714-18762197-64163110","span":{"begin":1025,"end":1026},"obj":"18762197"},{"id":"28680714-17484735-64163111","span":{"begin":1025,"end":1027},"obj":"17484735"},{"id":"28680714-22092345-64163112","span":{"begin":1025,"end":1028},"obj":"22092345"}],"text":"INTRODUCTION\nAlthough contact and distance osteogenesis have been defined and described, studies have not clearly elucidated these bone formation mechanisms around implants inserted into bone [1]. Therefore, it remains unclear whether contact and distance osteogenesis act independently or interactively to achieve peri-implant bone healing. However, some limited evidence suggests that they act independently. First, while both types of osteogenesis occur around topographically micro-roughened implant surfaces, this is not true for interfaces with smooth or polished implants; with these implants, bone only forms in the same direction as the old host bone. This suggests that distance osteogenesis can occur in the absence of contact osteogenesis [23]. Second, a study showed that when a micro-roughened implant is placed, there is an initial increase in the adsorption of proteins from the blood on the surface of the implant, and that these proteins direct bone formation from the implant surface toward the host bone [456]. This suggests that, to some degree, contact bone formation may act independently of distance osteogenesis in peri-implant bone healing.\nThis in vivo study was conducted to test our hypothesis that contact and distance osteogenesis are controlled by independent mechanisms. Microscopically roughened implants were inserted into rabbit bones, half of which were physically separated from the cortical bone by encasement in a titanium (Ti) tube. This allowed us to measure contact osteogenesis alone."}