Femtosecond laser microstructuring of zirconia dental implants

Abstract

This study evaluated the suitability of femtosecond laser for microtexturizing cylindrical zirconia dental implants surface. Sixty-six cylindrical zirconia implants were used and divided into three groups: Control group (with no laser modification), Group A (microgropored texture), and Group B (microgrooved texture). Scanning electron microscopy observation of microgeometries revealed minimal collateral damage of the original surface surrounding the treated areas. Optical interferometric profilometry showed that ultrafast laser ablation increased surface roughness (R(a), R(q), R(z), and R(t)) significantly for both textured patterns from 1.2 x to 6 x-fold when compared with the control group (p < 0.005). With regard to chemical composition, microanalysis revealed a significant decrease of the relative content of contaminants like carbon (Control 19.7% ± 0.8% > Group B 8.4% ± 0.42% > Group A 1.6% ± 0.35%) and aluminum (Control 4.3% ± 0.9% > Group B 2.3% ± 0.3% > Group A 1.16% ± 0.2%) in the laser-treated surfaces (p < 0.005). X-ray diffraction and Raman spectra analysis were carried out to investigate any change in the crystalline structure induced by laser processing. The original predominant tetragonal phase of zirconia was preserved, whereas the traces of monoclinic phase present in the treated surfaces were reduced (Control 4.32% > Group A 1.94% > Group B 1.72%) as the surfaces were processed with ultrashort laser pulses. We concluded that femtosecond laser microstructuring offers an interesting alternative to conventional surface treatments of zirconia implants as a result of its precision and minimal damage of the surrounding areas.

The Effect of UV Treatment on the Osteoconductive Capacity of Zirconia-Based Materials

“…So far, the method of choice for increasing the surface roughness of zirconia has been air-borne particle abrasion [6,8]. However, it is highly possible that this surface modification technique may jeopardize the material’s resistance to low-thermal-degradation (LTD), leading to an increased risk of surface degradation that may subsequently result in premature failure of the implant material [3] Alternative techniques to air-borne particle abrasion, such as selective infiltration-etching (SIE), laser surface modification (CO 2 , Er:YAG, femtosecond laser) and chemical methods (sol-gel, alternate soaking process, bio-mimetic route), have previously been described [17,18,19,20,21,22]. Recently, a new method for zirconia surface modification that combines Al 2 O 3 sandblasting together with acid etching and heat treatment has been documented [23].…”

Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell Behavior on Femtosecond Laser-Textured Ti-6Al-4V Surfaces

“…On the other hand, physical methods derived from the micro-electronics industry, such as photolithography, electron beam lithography and microcontact printing allow a better control of the surface topography and are reproducible [11], but they are complex and present severe limitations in terms of the shape of the implants, materials that can be treated and treatment speed and are extremely expensive. On the contrary, femtosecond laser surface texturing allows creating a variety of promising surface textures on a wide range of materials, including most metallic, ceramic and polymeric materials used in bioimplants [12][13][14][15][16][17]. The method presents unique characteristics of flexibility, simplicity, controllability and reproducibility, making it a very promising technique for the surface modification of dental and orthopedic implants.…”

Effect of Surface Modification on Viability of L929 Cells on Zirconia Nanocomposite Substrat

“…The microtexture specially groovy pattern was more effective than pored patterns. 23 Therefore, the morphology and viability of L929 cells on three different surface of A-Y-TZP20 substrate was evaluated (A: non surface treat, B: laser surface treat, C: laser surface treat and HA-Y-TZP (10%wt) nano-composite coat). All the substrates in this study were A-Y-TZP20 nanocomposite disk but their surfaces were different.…”