Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: A histometric study in the canine mandible

Abstract

Many dental clinical implant studies have focused on the success of endosseous implants with a variety of surface characteristics. Most of the surface alterations have been aimed at achieving greater bone-to-implant contact as determined histometrically at the light microscopic level. A previous investigation in non-oral bone under short-term healing periods (3 and 6 weeks) indicated that a sandblasted and acid-etched titanium (SLA) implant had a greater bone-to-implant contact than did a comparably-shaped implant with a titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) surface. In this canine mandible study, nonsubmerged implants with a SLA surface were compared to TPS-coated implants under loaded and nonloaded conditions for up to 15 months. Six foxhound dogs had 69 implants placed in an alternating pattern with six implants placed bilaterally in each dog. Gold crowns that mimicked the natural occlusion were fabricated for four dogs. Histometric analysis of bone contact with the implants was made for two dogs after 3 months of healing (unloaded group), 6 months of healing (3 months loaded), and after 15 months of healing (12 months loaded). The SLA implants had a significantly higher (p < 0.001) percentage of bone-to-implant contact than did the TPS implants after 3 months of healing (72.33 +/- 7.16 versus 52.15 +/- 9.19; mean +/- SD). After 3 months of loading (6 months of healing) no significant difference was found between the SLA and TPS surfaced implants (68.21 +/- 10.44 and 78.18 +/- 6.81, respectively). After 12 months of loading (15 months of healing) the SLA implants had a significantly greater percentage (p < 0.001) of bone-to-implant contact than did the TPS implants (71.68 +/- 6.64 and 58.88 +/- 4.62, respectively). No qualitative differences in bone tissue were observed between the two groups of implants nor was there any difference between the implants at the clinical level. These results are consistent with earlier studies on SLA implants and suggest that this surface promotes greater osseous contact at earlier time points compared to TPS-coated implants.

Enhanced Cell Integration to Titanium Alloy by Surface Treatment with Microarc Oxidation: A Pilot Study

“…The surface roughness of titanium implants affects the rate of osseointegration and biomechanical fixation [10,20]. Several in vitro studies have reported the effects of surface roughness on the adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblastic cells.…”

Influence of grade and surface topography of commercially pure titanium on fatigue properties

“…Structures of nano-meter level can form on the surface of implants by immersion in hot solutions of strong acids (hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and hydrofluoric acid) 32) . Roughness of nano-meter level has known to synergistically promote osteogenic proliferation and differentiation, and bone formation 8) . In this study, we confirmed that the same modification of the surface topography for dental implants was properly performed on Cp-Ti samples, and fatigue property was evaluated.…”

“…A combination of shot blasting and acid etching is often performed on Cp-Ti implants because it reportedly accelerates osseointegration [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] . In vitro experiments have demonstrated that the combination promotes adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblasts [11][12][13][14][15] .…”

“…In vitro experiments have demonstrated that the combination promotes adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation of osteoblasts [11][12][13][14][15] . In vivo experiments have demonstrated that it improves bone-implant contact and increases removal torque [8][9][10] . Gil et al reported that the residual compressive stress layer formed after shot blasting improves the fatigue life of Cp-Ti 16) .…”

Titanium dental implant surfaces

“…One way to decrease this clinical problem is to use a dental implant with a treated surface. It has been suggested that physiochemical and dielectric properties, crystal structure and surface morphology of titanium oxide films on dental implant surfaces play a crucial role in the biocompatibility and osseointegration of implants [3][4][5]. Consequently, numerous modifications for dental implants have been proposed and carried out to improve surface quality and to obtain the most biocompatible implant surface.…”