Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of Implant Surface Coated with pH Buffering Agent on Early Osseointegration

  • Kang, Joo Hyun (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Tissue Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Su-Kyoung (Implant R&D Center, Osstem Implant Co.) ;
  • Pae, Hyung Chul (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Tissue Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Park, Jin Young (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Tissue Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Cha, Jae-Kook (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Tissue Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Tissue Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2018.03.21
  • Accepted : 2018.06.28
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Surface treatment with pH buffering agent has been developed to achieve higher and faster osseointegration. The aim of this study was to evaluate its influence by measuring removal torque and analyzing histological characteristics. Materials and Methods: Titanium implants with following surfaces were used in this study: sand-blasted acid-etched (SA) surface (SA group as control I group), SA surface in calcium chloride aqueous solution (CA group as control II group) and SA surface coated with pH buffering agent (pH group as test group). Removal torque test after 2 weeks and bone-to-implant contact and bone area analyses at 2 and 4 weeks were performed. Result: The rotational torque values at 2 weeks were significantly higher in pH group ($107.5{\pm}6.2Ncm$, P<0.05). The mean values of bone-to-implant contact at 2 and 4 weeks were both higher in pH group ($93.0%{\pm}6.4%$ at 2 weeks, $88.6%{\pm}5.5%$ at 4 weeks) than in SA group ($49.7%{\pm}9.7%$ at 2 weeks, $47.3%{\pm}20.1%$ at 4 weeks) and CA group ($73.7%{\pm}12.4%$ at 2 weeks, $72.5%{\pm}10.9%$ at 4 weeks) with significances (P<0.05). The means of bone area showed significantly higher numbers in pH group ($39.5%{\pm}11.3%$ at 2 weeks, $71.9%{\pm}10.9%$ at 4 weeks, P<0.05). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that surface modification with pH buffering agent improved early osseointegration with superior biomechanical property.

Keywords

References

  1. Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont. 1998; 11: 391-401.
  2. 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
  3. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: part 2--review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17: 544-64.
  4. Esposito M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. The role of implant surface modifications, shape and material on the success of osseointegrated dental implants. A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2005; 13: 15-31.
  5. Puleo DA, Thomas MV. Implant surfaces. Dent Clin North Am. 2006; 50: 323-38, v. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2006.03.001
  6. Zhao G, Schwartz Z, Wieland M, Rupp F, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Cochran DL, Boyan BD. High surface energy enhances cell response to titanium substrate microstructure. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005; 74: 49-58.
  7. Morton D, Bornstein MM, Wittneben JG, Martin WC, Ruskin JD, Hart CN, Buser D. Early loading after 21 days of healing of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface: two-year results of a prospective two-center study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010; 12: 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00204.x
  8. Massaro C, Rotolo P, De Riccardis F, Milella E, Napoli A, Wieland M, Textor M, Spencer ND, Brunette DM. Comparative investigation of the surface properties of commercial titanium dental implants. Part I: chemical composition. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2002; 13: 535-48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015170625506
  9. Le Guéhennec L, Soueidan A, Layrolle P, Amouriq Y. Surface treatments of titanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent Mater. 2007; 23: 844-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.025
  10. Jimbo R, Ivarsson M, Koskela A, Sul YT, Johansson CB. Protein adsorption to surface chemistry and crystal structure modification of titanium surfaces. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2010; 1: e3.
  11. Eriksson C, Nygren H, Ohlson K. Implantation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium discs in rat tibia: cellular reactions on the surfaces during the first 3 weeks in bone. Biomaterials. 2004; 25: 4759-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.12.006
  12. Bornstein MM, Valderrama P, Jones AA, Wilson TG, Seibl R, Cochran DL. Bone apposition around two different sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implant surfaces: a histomorphometric study in canine mandibles. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 233-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01473.x
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Lang NP, Salvi GE, Huynh-Ba G, Ivanovski S, Donos N, Bosshardt DD. Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 349-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x
  16. 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
  17. Buser D, Broggini N, Wieland M, Schenk RK, Denzer AJ, Cochran DL, Hoffmann B, Lussi A, Steinemann SG. Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface. J Dent Res. 2004; 83: 529-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300704
  18. Qu Z, Rausch-Fan X, Wieland M, Matejka M, Schedle A. The initial attachment and subsequent behavior regulation of osteoblasts by dental implant surface modification. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007; 82: 658-68.
  19. Zhao G, Raines AL, Wieland M, Schwartz Z, Boyan BD. Requirement for both micron- and submicron scale structure for synergistic responses of osteoblasts to substrate surface energy and topography. Biomaterials. 2007; 28: 2821-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.02.024
  20. Rausch-fan X, Qu Z, Wieland M, Matejka M, Schedle A. Differentiation and cytokine synthesis of human alveolar osteoblasts compared to osteoblast-like cells (MG63) in response to titanium surfaces. Dent Mater. 2008; 24: 102-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.03.001
  21. Donos N, Hamlet S, Lang NP, Salvi GE, Huynh- Ba G, Bosshardt DD, Ivanovski S. Gene expression profile of osseointegration of a hydrophilic compared with a hydrophobic microrough implant surface. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 365-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02113.x
  22. Arnett TR. Extracellular pH regulates bone cell function. J Nutr. 2008; 138: 415S-8S. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/138.2.415S
  23. Silva-Boghossian CM, Negrao LF, Resende CRS, Elias CN, Falabella MEV, Gomes-da-Silva D. Removal torque and bone adherence to dental implants surface. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther. 2017; 8: 00279.
  24. Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP, Cochran DL, Nolte LP. Removal torque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13: 611-9.
  25. Koh JW, Yang JH, Han JS, Lee JB, Kim SH. Biomechanical evaluation of dental implants with different surfaces: removal torque and resonance frequency analysis in rabbits. J Adv Prosthodont. 2009; 1: 107-12. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2009.1.2.107
  26. 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