Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

In vivo comparison between the effects of chemically modified hydrophilic and anodically oxidized titanium surfaces on initial bone healing

  • Lee, Hyo-Jung (Department of Periodontology, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Yang, Il-Hyung (Department of Orthodontics and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Seong-Kyun (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Yeo, In-Sung (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Kwon, Taek-Ka (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, St. Vincent Hospital, Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2015.04.05
  • Accepted : 2015.04.29
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the combined effects of physical and chemical surface factors on in vivo bone responses by comparing chemically modified hydrophilic sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (modSLA) and anodically oxidized hydrophobic implant surfaces. Methods: Five modSLA implants and five anodized implants were inserted into the tibiae of five New Zealand white rabbits (one implant for each tibia). The characteristics of each surface were determined using field emission scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectroscopy, and confocal laser scanning microscopy before the installation. The experimental animals were sacrificed after 1 week of healing and histologic slides were prepared from the implant-tibial bone blocks removed from the animals. Histomorphometric analyses were performed on the light microscopic images, and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area (BA) ratios were measured. Nonparametric comparison tests were applied to find any significant differences (P<0.05) between the modSLA and anodized surfaces. Results: The roughness of the anodized surface was $1.22{\pm}0.17{\mu}m$ in Sa, which was within the optimal range of $1.0-2.0{\mu}m$ for a bone response. The modSLA surface was significantly rougher at $2.53{\pm}0.07{\mu}m$ in Sa. However, the modSLA implant had significantly higher BIC than the anodized implant (P=0.02). Furthermore, BA ratios did not significantly differ between the two implants, although the anodized implant had a higher mean value of BA (P>0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the hydrophilicity of the modSLA surface may have a stronger effect on in vivo bone healing than optimal surface roughness and surface chemistry of the anodized surface.

Keywords

References

  1. Anselme K, Bigerelle M, Noel B, Dufresne E, Judas D, Iost A, et al. Qualitative and quantitative study of human osteoblast adhesion on materials with various surface roughnesses. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;49:155-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(200002)49:2<155::AID-JBM2>3.0.CO;2-J
  2. Lausmaa J. Surface spectroscopic characterization of titanium implant materials. J Electron Spectros Relat Phenomena 1996;81: 343-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0368-2048(95)02530-8
  3. Albrektsson T. Direct bone anchorage of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:255-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90027-6
  4. Lim YJ, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco MT. Surface characterizations of variously treated titanium materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:333-42.
  5. Taborelli M, Jobin M, Francois P, Vaudaux P, Tonetti M, Szmukler-Moncler S, et al. Influence of surface treatments developed for oral implants on the physical and biological properties of titanium. (I) Surface characterization. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997;8: 208-16. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080307.x
  6. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20 Suppl 4:172-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01775.x
  7. Cooper LF. A role for surface topography in creating and maintaining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84:522-34. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.111966
  8. Pilliar RM. Overview of surface variability of metallic endosseous dental implants: textured and porous surface-structured designs. Implant Dent 1998;7:305-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199807040-00009
  9. Kilpadi DV, Lemons JE. Surface energy characterization of unalloyed titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res 1994;28:1419-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820281206
  10. Wang R, Hashimoto K, Fujishima A, Chikuni M, Kojima E, Kitamura A, et al. Light-induced amphiphilic surfaces. Nature 1997; 388:431-2. https://doi.org/10.1038/41233
  11. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:331-44.
  12. Bico J, Thiele U, Quere D. Wetting of textured surfaces. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 2002;206:41-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00061-4
  13. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Eichler M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Wetting behavior of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26: 1256-66.
  14. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Olshanska N, de Wild M, Wieland M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Enhancing surface free energy and hydrophilicity through chemical modification of microstructured titanium implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006;76:323-34.
  15. Rupp F, Scheideler L, Rehbein D, Axmann D, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Roughness induced dynamic changes of wettability of acid etched titanium implant modifications. Biomaterials 2004;25:1429-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.015
  16. Textor M, Sittig C, Frauchiger V, Tosatti S, Brunette DM. Properties and biological significance of natural oxide films on titanium and its alloys. In: Brunette DM, Tengvall P, Textor M, Thomsen P, editors. Titanium in medicine: material science, surface science, engineering, biological responses, and medical applications. Berlin: Springer; 2001. p.171-230.
  17. Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, Schenk RK, Denzer AJ, Cochran DL, et al. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res 2004;83:529-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300704
  18. Junker R, Dimakis A, Thoneick M, Jansen JA. Effects of implant surface coatings and composition on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20 Suppl 4:185-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01777.x
  19. Schwarz F, Ferrari D, Herten M, Mihatovic I, Wieland M, Sager M, et al. Effects of surface hydrophilicity and microtopography on early stages of soft and hard tissue integration at non-submerged titanium implants: an immunohistochemical study in dogs. J Periodontol 2007;78:2171-84. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.070157
  20. Choi JY, Lee HJ, Jang JU, Yeo IS. Comparison between bioactive fluoride modified and bioinert anodically oxidized implant surfaces in early bone response using rabbit tibia model. Implant Dent 2012;21:124-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e318249f283
  21. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:63-74.
  22. Iwai-Yoshida M, Shibata Y, Wurihan, Suzuki D, Fujisawa N, Tanimoto Y, et al. Antioxidant and osteogenic properties of anodically oxidized titanium. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2012;13:230-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.01.016
  23. Le Guehennec L, Lopez-Heredia MA, Enkel B, Weiss P, Amouriq Y, Layrolle P. Osteoblastic cell behaviour on different titanium implant surfaces. Acta Biomater 2008;4:535-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2007.12.002
  24. Schuler RF, Janakievski J, Hacker BM, O'Neal RB, Roberts FA. Effect of implant surface and grafting on implants placed into simulated extraction sockets: a histologic study in dogs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:893-900.
  25. Ferguson SJ, Broggini N, Wieland M, de Wild M, Rupp F, Geis-Gerstorfer J, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the interfacial strength of a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched titanium surface. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006;78:291-7.
  26. Wall I, Donos N, Carlqvist K, Jones F, Brett P. Modified titanium surfaces promote accelerated osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stromal cells in vitro. Bone 2009;45:17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2009.03.662
  27. Hong J, Kurt S, Thor A. A hydrophilic dental implant surface exhibits thrombogenic properties in vitro. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:105-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00362.x
  28. Yeo IS, Han JS, Yang JH. Biomechanical and histomorphometric study of dental implants with different surface characteristics. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008;87:303-11.
  29. Donath K, Breuner G. A method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissues. The Sage-Schliff (sawing and grinding) technique. J Oral Pathol 1982;11:318-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0714.1982.tb00172.x
  30. Roberts WE, Smith RK, Zilberman Y, Mozsary PG, Smith RS. Osseous adaptation to continuous loading of rigid endosseous implants. Am J Orthod 1984;86:95-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90301-4
  31. Steigenga J, Al-Shammari K, Misch C, Nociti FH Jr, Wang HL. Effects of implant thread geometry on percentage of osseointegration and resistance to reverse torque in the tibia of rabbits. J Periodontol 2004;75:1233-41. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2004.75.9.1233
  32. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: Part 2--review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:544-64.
  33. Schwarz F, Herten M, Sager M, Wieland M, Dard M, Becker J. Bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects at chemically modified (SLActive) and conventional SLA titanium implants: a pilot study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 2007;34:78-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.01008.x
  34. Gottlow J, Barkarmo S, Sennerby L. An experimental comparison of two different clinically used implant designs and surfaces. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14 Suppl 1:e204-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00439.x
  35. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Linder E, Lang NP, Lindhe J. Early bone formation adjacent to rough and turned endosseous implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:381-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01082.x
  36. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:251-62. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00972.x
  37. Schwarz F, Herten M, Sager M, Wieland M, Dard M, Becker J. Histological and immunohistochemical analysis of initial and early osseous integration at chemically modified and conventional SLA titanium implants: preliminary results of a pilot study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:481-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01341.x
  38. Schmid J, Wallkamm B, Hammerle CH, Gogolewski S, Lang NP. The significance of angiogenesis in guided bone regeneration. A case report of a rabbit experiment. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8:244-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080311.x

Cited by

  1. The response of osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells to micro- and nano-textured, hydrophilic and bioactive titanium surfaces vol.27, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-016-5678-5
  2. Structure and shear strength of implants with plasma coatings vol.7, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1134/s2075113316030102
  3. Effects of alkaline treatment for fibroblastic adhesion on titanium vol.13, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.197043
  4. Substrate Stiffness Controls Osteoblastic and Chondrocytic Differentiation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells without Exogenous Stimuli vol.12, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170312
  5. Substrate roughness induces the development of defective E-cadherin junctions in human gingival keratinocytes vol.47, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2017.47.2.116
  6. Osteogenesis-Related Behavior of MC3T3-E1 Cells on Substrates with Tunable Stiffness vol.2018, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4025083
  7. Comparison between Sandblasted Acid-Etched and Oxidized Titanium Dental Implants: In Vivo Study vol.20, pp.13, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20133267
  8. Modifications of Dental Implant Surfaces at the Micro- and Nano-Level for Enhanced Osseointegration vol.13, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13010089
  9. Biomimetic titanium implant coated with extracellular matrix enhances and accelerates osteogenesis vol.15, pp.18, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2020-0047
  10. A comparison of bone conductivity on titanium screws inserted into the vertebra using different surface processing vol.7, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-020-00250-w
  11. Acceleration of Bone Formation and Adhesion Ability on Dental Implant Surface via Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation in a Solution Containing Bone Ions vol.11, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/met11010106
  12. Multifunctional natural polymer-based metallic implant surface modifications vol.16, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1116/6.0000876
  13. Effect of the Acid-Etching on Grit-Blasted Dental Implants to Improve Osseointegration: Histomorphometric Analysis of the Bone-Implant Contact in the Rabbit Tibia Model vol.11, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11111426