Bone-metal interface in osseointegration

Albrektsson, Tomas; Jacobsson, Maritha

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(87)90344-1

Cited by 224 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other materials, such as AISI 3 16L stainless steel and Ti-6A1-4V alloy, consistently provoke an untoward reaction as shown by transmission electron microscopy Hansson 1986, Albrektsson andJacobson 1987). Albrektsson and Albrektsson (1987) are of the opinion that with time such inconspicuous reactions will lead to loosening of a loaded implant.…”

Section: Osseointegration Of Metallic Implants II Transmission Electmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stainless steel was included in the study partly because of its wide use, but in particular because of its allegedly inferior biocompatibility (Albrektsson and Albrektsson 1987). It is noteworthy that in the light microscopic study on which this material is based (Linder 1989) 17/18 steel implants were solidly integrated, including 8/9 with apolished surface, which should have given the implants a weak primary interlock with the tissue.…”

Section: Comments On Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Osseointegration of metallic implants: II. Transmission electron microscopy in the rabbit

Linder

Obrant

Boivin

1989

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Osseointegration Of Metallic Implants II Transmission Electmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comments On Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Osseointegration of metallic implants: II. Transmission electron microscopy in the rabbit

Linder

Obrant

Boivin

1989

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Albrektosson and Jacobsson observed thin amorphous structures between the bone and the titanium implant. 7) Recently, in an ultrastructural study, Ayukawa et al found a thin amorphous zone at the osseointegrated layer between the titanium and bone interface. [8][9][10] Based on this investigation, it can be speculated on the process occurring in the implant hosts (Fig.…”

Section: Osseointegration Of Titaniummentioning

confidence: 98%

Bio-Functionalization of Titanium Surfaces for Dental Implants

Yoshinari¹,

Matsuzaka

Inoue

et al. 2002

Mater. Trans.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since dental implants are used in contact with many different tissues, it is necessary to have optimum surface compatibility with the host bone tissues and soft tissues. Furthermore, dental implant surfaces exposed to the oral cavity must remain plaque-free. Such materials can be created under well-controlled conditions by modifying the surfaces of metals that contact those tissues. "Tissue-compatible implants," which are compatible with all host tissues, must integrate with bone tissue, easily form hemidesmosomes, and prevent bacterial adhesion. This research was aimed at developing such tissue-compatible implants by modifying titanium surfaces using a dry process for closely adhering to the titanium substrate and ensuring good wear resistance. The process includes ion beam dynamic mixing (thin calcium phosphates), ion implantation, titania spraying, ion plating and ion beam mixing. At the bone tissue/implant interface, a thin calcium phosphate coating and rapid heating with infrared radiation was effective in controlling the dissolution without cracking the coating. This thin calcium phosphate coating may directly promote osteogenisis, but also enable immobilization of functional proteins or drugs such as bisphosphonate for dug delivery system. At the oral fluid/implant interface, an alumina coating and F + -implantation were responsible for inhibiting the adhesion of microbial plaque. In conclusion, dry-process surface modification is useful in controlling the physicochemical nature of surfaces, including the surface energy and the surface electrical charge, and in developing tissue-compatible implants.

show abstract

“…[9] It has been reported that mini-implants can be further divided into two group: 1) those that provide mechanical retention and 2) those that osseointegrate. [10] The process of osseointegration is a histological phenomenon through which the bony tissue is formed around the implant without the presence of fibrous tissue at the interface of implant-bone, [11][12][13] however, in mechanical retention, those areas which are in direct contact with the bone are in charge of providing the primary stability; while there might be gaps in other areas between the mini-implant and the bone. [10] Osseointegrated devices need a healing period during 196 which they should not be loaded.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%