With magnetic device: study in dogs

Roberta Michels*1; Carina Kampleitner2; Stefan Tangl2; Reinhard Gruber3; Cesar Augusto Benfatti1

1Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil; 2University Clinic of Dentistry; 3Oral Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Background: The development of new technologies that can improve osseointegration, reducing treatment time and enabling patients who have comorbidities that affect implant osseointegration, has become the focus in research. In vivo and in vitro studies have revealed that magnetic fields (MF) can improve the healing of bone fractures and bone formation through increased proliferation of osteoblasts, indicating that the MF can be used as a healing therapy bone, acting positively on osteogenic aspects.

Aim/Hypothesis: The objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of static magnetic field generated by NdFeB magnetic devices on the osseointegration of machined dental implants, histologically and histomorphometrically in vivo in dogs, in the initial stages of healing (7 and 15 days).

Material and Methods: Thirty implants, 11 mm long and 6 mm in diameter, were installed in 6 Beagle dogs, divided into two groups for 7 and 15 days, where they were subdivided into two groups: control group (machined implant) and test group (machined implant with coupled magnetic device). After surgery and healing time, the animals were sacrificed to perform the samples for histological analysis using EXAKT method (Apparatebau, Norderstedt, Germany), and micro CT scans were used to analyze nBV/TV and nBIC. Histomorphometric results were evaluated by means and standard deviation (SD). For

induction, we used Welch's two sample t-tests to compare treatments lasting 15 days per site, for nBIC and nBV/TV. All calculations were made using R version 4.0.3 (R Core Team 2020).

Results: It was not possible to identify. statistical difference (p <0.05) when comparing control group and test group in 7 and 15 days of healing in the evaluation of nBIC and nBV (table 1,2). However, in 15 days of healing nBV had a higher average in the test group of the than in control. Static magnetic field generated by a force of 28.5T in dental implants in the initial healing periods in dogs has no statistically significant difference when compared to the control group.

Conclusion and Clinical implications: Magnetic device with force considered strong, allocated in machined dental implants, does not have statistical difference when compared to the control group in osseointegration in the initial healing periods of 7 and 15 days. However, this was the first finding around this subject, and bringing us closer to the necessary strength for there to be an osteogenic differentiation and a faster healing and osseointegration.

Disclosure of Interest: None Declared.

Keywords: dental implants, histology, osseointegration