Bone Formation at Titanium Implants Prepared with Iso- and Anisotropic Surfaces of Similar Roughness: An in Vivo Study

Abstract

Titanium implants prepared with isotropic and anisotropic surfaces of similar roughness integrate similarly to bone during the 3 months after implantation.

Biomaterials and interface with bone

“…They compared titanium implants prepared by turning and blasting in order to produce respectively anisotropic and isotropic surfaces with similar roughness amplitude. Their implantation in femur of rabbits during 12 weeks and the histomorphometrical analysis showed a similar osseointegration of the two surfaces [16]. Other in vivo studies are needed to check if the in vitro observations described previously can be confirmed or not on bone tissue.…”

“…However, this has not been demonstrated in vivo. The only work done to our knowledge on this aspect was published in 2005 by Göransson and Wennerberg [16]. They compared titanium implants prepared by turning and blasting in order to produce respectively anisotropic and isotropic surfaces with similar roughness amplitude.…”

Guided Surgery and Presurgical Prosthesis: Preliminary Results of 33 Fully Edentulous Maxillae Treated in Accordance with the NobelGuide® Protocol

“…Albrektsson and Wennerberg, 21,22 Goransson and Wennerberg 23 show that certain surface characteristics play a fundamental role in accelerating the anchoring of the implant in the bone. Some studies 15,17,24 effectively present a varying success rate between the different types of implant surface, in favor of rough surface implants (99%) compared with machined surface implants (83%).…”

Titanium implant surface modification by cathodic reduction in hydrofluoric acid: Surface characterization and in vivo performance

“…In this study, the HF concentrations in the electrolyte used for the cathodic reduction process were selected in order to achieve a weak, a moderate, and a strong etching effect on the titanium surfaces, without introducing surface cracks 26. The aim was to modify the surface morphology from polished to rough through etching, as surface roughness is known to play an important role in bone attachment 27–32. Indeed, implants with rough surfaces are typically associated with higher retention force in bone, when compared with smooth‐surface implants 33–36.…”