Benefits of Residual Aluminum Oxide for Sand Blasting Titanium Dental Implants: Osseointegration and Bactericidal Effects

Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of this work was to determine the influence of residual alumina after sand blasting treatment in titanium dental implants. This paper studied the effect of alumina on physico-chemical surface properties, such as: surface wettability, surface energy. Osseointegration and bacteria adhesion were determined in order to determine the effect of the abrasive particles. Materials and Methods. Three surfaces were studied: (1) as-received, (2) rough surface with residual alumina from sand blasting on the surface and (3) with the same roughness but without residual alumina. Roughness was determined by white light interferometer microscopy. Surface wettability was evaluated with a contact angle video-based system and the surface free energy by means of Owens and Wendt equation. Scanning electron microscopy equipped with microanalysis was used to study the morphology and determine the chemical composition of the surfaces. Bacteria (Lactobacillus salivarius and Streptococcus sanguinis) were cultured in each surface. In total, 110 dental implants were placed into the bone of eight minipigs in order to compare the osseointegration. The percentage of bone-to-implant contact was determined after 4 and 6 weeks of implantation with histometric analysis. Results. The surfaces with residual alumina presented a lower surface free energy than clean surfaces. The in vivo studies demonstrated that the residual alumina accelerated bone tissue growth at different implantation times, in relation to clean dental implants. In addition, residual alumina showed a bactericidal effect by decreasing the quantity of bacteria adhering to the titanium. Conclusions. It is possible to verify the benefits that the alumina (percentages around 8% in weight) produces on the surface of titanium dental implants. Clinical relevance. Clinicians should be aware of the benefits of sand-blasted alumina due to the physico-chemical surface changes demonstrated in in vivo tests.

Latest Trends in Surface Modification for Dental Implantology: Innovative Developments and Analytical Applications

“…During the sandblasting process, when abrasives are projected to the surface, in order to obtain the optimum macro-roughness, some factors must be monitored [70]. In particular, the choice of the employed particles (i.e., type, size and shape) is a key point, and abrasives must be harder than implant materials to produce roughness [70,71].…”

“…During the sandblasting process, when abrasives are projected to the surface, in order to obtain the optimum macro-roughness, some factors must be monitored [70]. In particular, the choice of the employed particles (i.e., type, size and shape) is a key point, and abrasives must be harder than implant materials to produce roughness [70,71]. Moreover, the distance from the projection gun to the surface, the projection pressure, the saturation time and projection diameter represent important parameters that influence the roughness [70].…”

“…In particular, the choice of the employed particles (i.e., type, size and shape) is a key point, and abrasives must be harder than implant materials to produce roughness [70,71]. Moreover, the distance from the projection gun to the surface, the projection pressure, the saturation time and projection diameter represent important parameters that influence the roughness [70]. Sandblasting has been considered a key treatment to modify implant surfaces with osseoinductive activity, and to increase the contact angles for the improvement of hydrophilic behavior for osteoblasts adsorption [70,72].…”

“…Moreover, the distance from the projection gun to the surface, the projection pressure, the saturation time and projection diameter represent important parameters that influence the roughness [70]. Sandblasting has been considered a key treatment to modify implant surfaces with osseoinductive activity, and to increase the contact angles for the improvement of hydrophilic behavior for osteoblasts adsorption [70,72]. On the other hand, sandblasting induced by abrasives can lead to microbial contamination with the consequence of implant failure [72].…”

Physicochemical Properties of Dentine Subjected to Microabrasive Blasting and Its Influence on Bonding to Self-Adhesive Prosthetic Cement in Shear Bond Strength Test: An In Vitro Study

“…It has been proven, inter alia, that the weight content oscillating up to about 20% improves these properties in the case of Al 2 O 3 /epoxy resin or as a biocidal modification of the surface of endosseous implants. Such surface modification reduced adhesion of bacteria to Al 2 O 3blasted surface [96][97][98]. Considering the above, the incorporation of alumina particles into the content of already set prosthetic cement does not appear to be a drawback, nevertheless, whether it creates mechanical or biological alterations in the material itself is beyond the scope of this study and requires additional investigation.…”