Dental implant surfaces after insertion in bone: an in vitro study in four commercial implant systems

Deppe, Herbert; Wolff, Carolina; Bauer, Florian; Ruthenberg, Ricarda; Sculean, Anton; Mücke, Thomas

doi:10.1007/s00784-017-2262-4

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…29,30 Only a few researchers held the perception that anodized implant surface modification may result in relatively severe alterations. 31 The previous studies did not reach an agreement on which kind of surface treatment was better; however, the SLA was deemed to be more reliable for short implants in this study. We hypothesized that the issue may be correlated with the time of osseointegration according to the result of survival analysis, which still requires experimental research.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

Chen

Yang

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With advanced technology, short implants are more commonly used and have proven to have a relatively reliable curable efficacy. A consensus has not been reached regarding potential risk factors related to the loss of short implants. Purpose This large‐sample retrospective study concentrated not only on patient characteristics and medical procedures but also on the features of implants in order to uncover the risk factors associated with short implants. Methods Between 2014 and 2017, a total of 7001 implants were inserted at Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University. Among the all, 1236 short implants were included after being evaluated according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In organizing the detailed information, seven variables including bone grafting procedure, age, gender, diameter of the implant, implant position, surface treatment, and definitive restorations were taken into consideration. The χ2 test, Kaplan‐Meier test, logistic regression, and multifactorial Cox regression analysis were employed to explore the risk factors. Results The cumulative survival rate of short implants was 96.36%, slightly lower than that of the standard implants (98.16%, P < .001). Most of the short implants (84.44%) were lost at the early stage, mainly because of infection. Based on the results, male gender, implants treated by titanium anodizing and single‐crown restoration increased the loss rate of short implants. Comparison of the short implants inserted into the maxillary and mandibular posterior area alone showed that the maxillary molar area was a risk factor for prognosis. Conclusions Male gender, TA surface treatment, and the presence of a single crown were associated with an increasing rate of short implants loss. Examination of the implant location focused on the posterior area revealed the maxillary posterior area to be a risk factor.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

Chen

Yang

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the implant surface is treated by any of the methods exposed above, traces of the materials used, such as metals, metal ions, lubricants, and detergents, may appear. These elements can modify surface properties even when present in small quantities and may affect the body´s response during the osseointegration process, leading to the formation of undesirable tissues between bone/implant interface [18,19]. Although the effects caused by these low concentration trace elements are relatively weak studied, there is a broad agreement that comprehensive control of the implant surface and elimination of undesirable chemical compounds must be done to improve implant quality [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of the Titanium Implant Surface Treatment on the Surface Roughness and Chemical Composition

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implant surface features affect the osseointegration process. Different surface treatment methods have been applied to improve the surface topography and properties. Trace of different elements may appear on the implant surface, which can modify surface properties and may affect the body’s response. The aim was to evaluate the roughness based on the surface treatment received and the amount and type of trace elements found. Ninety implants (nine different surface treatment) were evaluated. Roughness parameters were measured using white-light-interferometry (WLI). The arithmetical mean for Ra, Rq, Rt, and Rz of each implant system was calculated, and Fisher’s exact test was applied, obtaining Ra values between 0.79 and 2.89 µm. Surface chemical composition was evaluated using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) at two times: as received by the manufacturer (AR) and after sputter-cleaning (SC). Traces of several elements were found in all groups, decreasing in favor of the Ti concentration after the sputter-cleaning. Within the limitations of this study, we can conclude that the surface treatment influences the roughness and the average percentage of the trace elements on the implant surface. The cleaning process at the implant surface should be improved by the manufacturer before assembling the implant.

show abstract

“…• An in vitro study showed that the insertion of oral implants could provoke the release of particles by stripping them off the surface (Deppe et al, 2017). Three implant systems with different surface roughness were placed in porcine bone of Class I according to Misch classification (Misch, 1999).…”

Section: Mechanical Wearmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the impact of titanium particles and biocorrosion on implant survival and complications? A critical review

Mombelli

Hashim

2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

166

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compile the current evidence regarding the association between the release of titanium particles and biologic complications of dental implants. Material and methods This is a critical review. We searched the literature using the terms “corrosion,” “allergy,” “hypersensitivity,” or “particles” together with “titanium,” “Ti,” “TiO2.” The bibliographies of identified publications and previously published review articles were scanned to find additional related articles. We included clinical studies, in vivo and in vitro experiments. Results Titanium particles and degradation products of titanium have been detected in oral and nonoral tissues. Particles are released from surfaces of dental implants because of material degradation in a process called tribocorrosion. It involves mechanical wear and environmental factors, notably contact to chemical agents and interaction with substances produced by adherent biofilm and inflammatory cells. In vitro, titanium particles can interfere with cell function and promote inflammation. A temporal association between exposure to titanium and occurrence of tissue reactions suggested hypersensitivity in a limited number of cases. However, there is poor specificity as the observed reactions could be initiated by other factors associated with the placement of implants. Titanium particles are commonly detected in healthy and diseased peri‐implant mucosa alike, at low levels even in gingiva of individuals without titanium implants. Rather than being the trigger of disease, higher concentrations of titanium in peri‐implantitis lesions could be the consequence of the presence of biofilms and inflammation. Conclusion There is an association between biocorrosion, presence of titanium particles, and biological implant complications, but there is insufficient evidence to prove a unidirectional causal relationship.

show abstract

Dental implant surfaces after insertion in bone: an in vitro study in four commercial implant systems

Abstract: The given information is of value for daily implantation practice and the course of osseointegration.

Cited by 28 publications

References 22 publications

Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

Retrospective clinical analysis of risk factors associated with failed short implants

Influence of the Titanium Implant Surface Treatment on the Surface Roughness and Chemical Composition

What is the impact of titanium particles and biocorrosion on implant survival and complications? A critical review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About