Table 3 In vivo studies categorised in animal model, implant type and material, evaluation, stimulation parameter, stimulation duration and results
From: Electrical stimulation to promote osseointegration of bone anchoring implants: a topical review
References | Animal model (implant site) | Implant type & material | Evaluation | Stimulation parameter | Stimulation duration | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Isaacson et al. 2011 [47] | Rabbit (femur, medullary channel) | Dental implant, Ti6Al4V | SEM1, histological assessment (bone ingrowth), porosity analysis, dynamic histomorphometry, (mineral apposition rate), biomechanical testing (degree of skeletal attachment was tested with push-out tests) | 0.55Â V (1.2Â V/cm and 1.82Â mA/cm2) | 3 and 6Â weeks | Significant increase of trabecular bone around the implant in the stimulated group compared to non-stimulated. Slightly higher values for appositional bone index and mineral apposition rates in stimulated groups, although no significant values |
Buch et al. 1984 [46] | Rabbit (tibial metaphysis) | Cylinder with two chambers, titanium | Histology (qualitative analysis), microradiography followed by a computer-aided density analysis | 5 µA, 20 µA and 50 µA constant DC | 3 weeks | Significant difference in BMC4 with stimulation of 5 and 20 µA. No significant difference of BMC with stimulation of 50 µA and no significant difference in qualitative analysis between stimulated and non-stimulated groups. The cathode was always overgrown with bone tissue in those cases when it had been connected to the simulator |
Bins-Ely et al. 2017 [48] | Beagle dogs (tibia) | Dental implant, commercially pure titanium grade IV | BIC2 by histology and histomorphometry analysis | 10 µA and 20 µA constant DC3 | 7 and 15 days | Significant increase in BIC after 15 days of stimulation of 20 µA compared to stimulation of 10 µA and control group. No significant results between groups after 7 days |
Shayesteh et al. 2007 [49] | Mongrel dogs (mandible) | Dental implant, titanium | BCA5 and BCR6 by histological evaluation, quantitative and qualitative analysis | 20 µA, 3 V, constant DC | 30 days (evaluation after 90 days) | Significant increase in BCR and local bone formation around the stimulated implants as compared to non-stimulated control implants when evaluated at 90 days |
Colella et al. 1981 [50] | Mongrel dogs (femur) | Porous cylinder, titanium | SEM (bone-implant interference), EDAX7 analysis (determine the calcium content within the implants), push-out-test (mechanical testing) | 15 μA constant DC | 1, 6, 7, 8 days (evaluation after 1, 2 and 3 weeks) | A substantially greater maximum shear stress was needed to push out the stimulated implant as compared to the control. No qualitative difference was detected in bone ingrowth between the experimental and control implants. The results imply that ES8 promote both rate and quantity of bone ingrowth, since stimulated implant did appear to adhere more closely to bone |
Dergin et al. 2013 [10] | Sheep (tibia) | Dental implant, titanium | BIC, degree of osteoblast activity, necrosis, immature bone, and mature bone formation by histologic and histomorphometry analysis | 7.5 μA constant DC during a period of 12 h per day (6 h off and 6 h on) | 4, 8 and 12 weeks | No significant increase in BIC ratio, osteoblast activity, or new bone formation as compared to non-stimulated controls |
Song et al. 2009 [9] | Beagle dogs (mandible) | Dental implant, titanium | BIC and BA9 by histological evaluations | BEC stimulation with current density of 20 µA/cm2, pulse width of 125 µs and a frequency of 100 Hz | 7 days (evaluation after 3 and 5 weeks) | Significant increase in newly formed bone area after 3 and 5 weeks. Significant increase in BIC in specimen after 3 weeks, no significant difference between stimulated and non-stimulated specimens in BIC after 5 weeks |