The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern

Marcio Borges Rosa, Tomas Albrektsson, Carlos Eduardo Francischone, Humberto Osvaldo Schwartz Filho, Ann Wennerberg, Marcio Borges Rosa, Tomas Albrektsson, Carlos Eduardo Francischone, Humberto Osvaldo Schwartz Filho, Ann Wennerberg

Abstract

An important parameter for the clinical success of dental implants is the formation of direct contact between the implant and surrounding bone, whose quality is directly influenced by the implant surface roughness. A screw-shaped design and a surface with an average roughness of Sa of 1-2 µm showed a better result. The combination of blasting and etching has been a commonly used surface treatment technique. The versatility of this type of treatment allows for a wide variation in the procedures in order to obtain the desired roughness.

Objectives: To compare the roughness values and morphological characteristics of 04 brands of implants, using the same type of surface treatment. In addition, to compare the results among brands, in order to assess whether the type of treatment determines the values and the characteristics of implant surface roughness.

Material and methods: Three implants were purchased directly from each selected company in the market, i.e., 03 Brazilian companies (Biomet 3i of Brazil, Neodent and Titaniumfix) and 01 Korean company (Oneplant). The quantitative or numerical characterization of the roughness was performed using an interferometer. The qualitative analysis of the surface topography obtained with the treatment was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy images.

Results: The evaluated implants showed a significant variation in roughness values: Sa for Oneplant was 1.01 µm; Titaniumfix reached 0.90 µm; implants from Neodent 0.67 µm, and Biomet 3i of Brazil 0.53 µm. Moreover, the SEM images showed very different patterns for the surfaces examined. CONCCLUSIONS: The surface treatment alone is not able to determine the roughness values and characteristics.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Red: top; green: flank; orange: valley
Figure 2
Figure 2
a, b and c: Filter sequence in which the undulations and shapes have been removed Note: a: Nanotite original; b: Nanotite 50X50 μm Gaussian filter; c: Nanotite 50X50 μm Gaussian filter low pass
Figure 3
Figure 3
Interferometer images (left) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images 3,000X magnification (right). Note: A and B Neodent; C and D Titaniumfix; E and F 3i Biomet; G and H Oneplant

References

    1. Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52:155–170.
    1. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: part 1 - review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:536–543.
    1. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Oral implant surfaces: part 2 - review focusing on clinical knowledge of different surfaces. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:544–564.
    1. Anselme K, Bigerelle M. Topography effects of pure titanium substrates on human osteoblast long-term adhesion. Acta Biomater. 2005;1:211–222.
    1. Balshe AA, Assad DA, Eckert SE, Koka S, Weaver AL. A retrospective study of the survival of smooth- and rough-surface dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofacial Implants. 2009;24:1113–1118.
    1. Braceras I, De Maeztu MA, Alava JI, Gay-Escoda C. In vivo lowdensity bone opposition on different implant surface materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:274–278.
    1. Brunette MD. Principles of cell behaviour on titanium surfaces and their application to implanted devices. In: Brunette DM, Tengvall P, Textor M, Thomsen P, editors. Titanium in Medicine. Berlin: Spinger Verlag; 2001. pp. 485–512.
    1. Chang PC, Lang NP, Giannobile WV. Evaluation of functional dynamics during osseointegration and regeneration associated with oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:1–12.
    1. Cooper LF. A role for surface topography in creating and maintaining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:522–534.
    1. Elias CN, Meirelles L. Improving osseointegration of dental implants. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2010;7:241–256.
    1. Elias CN, Oshida Y, Lima JH, Muller CA. Relationship between surface properties (roughness, wettability and morphology) of titanium and dental implant removal torque. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2008;1:234–242.
    1. Friberg B, Jemt T. Rehabilitation of edentulous mandibles by means of five TiUnite implants after one-stage surgery: a 1-year retrospective study of 90 patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008;10:47–54.
    1. Mendonça G, Mendonça DB, Aragão FJ, Cooper LF. Advancing dental implant surface technology - from micron- to nanotopography. Biomaterials. 2008;29:3822–3835.
    1. Pinholt EM. Brånemark and ITI dental implants in the human bone-grafted maxilla: a comparative evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(5):584–592.
    1. Rocci A, Martignoni M, Gottlow J. Immediate loading of Brånemark System TiUnite and machined-surface implants in the posterior mandible: a randomized open-ended clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(Suppl 1):57–63.
    1. Rosa MB, Albrektsson T, Francischone CE, Schwartz Filho HO, Wennerberg A. Micrometric characterization of the implant surfaces from the five largest companies in Brazil, the second largest worldwide implant market. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012:In press.
    1. Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Van't Hof MA, Jansen JA, Creugers NH. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2006;85:496–500.
    1. Shalabi MM, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. The effects of implant surface roughness and surgical technique on implant fixation in an in vitro model. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:172–178.
    1. Strassburger C, Kerschbaum T, Heydecke G. Influence of implant and conventional prostheses on satisfaction and quality of life: a literature review. Part 2: qualitative analysis and evaluation of the studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19:339–348.
    1. Sul YT, Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19:319–328.
    1. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Resonance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(3):252–259.
    1. Svanborg LM, Andersson M, Wennerberg A. Surface characterization of commercial oral implants on the nanometer level. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010;92:462–469.
    1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:331–344.
    1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(Suppl 4):172–184.
    1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. On implant surfaces: a review of current knowledge and opinions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:63–74.
    1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B. Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:38–45.
    1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B, Krol JJ. A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6:24–30.
    1. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andersson B. Experimental study of turned and grit-blasted screw-shaped implants with special emphasis on effects of blasting material and surface topography. Biomaterials. 1996;17:15–22.
    1. Wennerberg A, Ektessabi A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andersson B. A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:486–494.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する