Guided Bone Regeneration Around Titanium Plasma‐Sprayed, Acid‐Etched, and Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Implants in the Canine Model

Conner, K.A.; Sabatini, Robert; Mealey, Brian L.; Takacs, Vincent J.; Mills, Michael P.; Cochran, David L.

doi:10.1902/jop.2003.74.5.658

Cited by 36 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even during the early phases of bone tissue implant technology, sandblasting or microstructuring by coating with hydroxyapatite crystals (Conner et al 2003;Knabe et al 2004) or by compression molding (Ward and Webster 2006;Khang et al 2008) were used as efficient methods for the mechanical roughening of titanium implants. Improved cell adhesion was also obtained after the chemical etching of titanium with acid (see Knabe et al 2004) or by Ca ++ ion implantation on titanium surfaces (Hanawa et al 1997).…”

Section: Physical and Chemical Surface Modificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanoscale engineering of biomimetic surfaces: cues from the extracellular matrix

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ultimate goal in the design of biomimetic materials for use in tissue engineering as permanent or resorbable tissue implants is to generate biocompatible scaffolds with appropriate biomechanical and chemical properties to allow the adhesion, ingrowth, and survival of cells. Recent efforts have therefore focused on the construction and modification of biomimetic surfaces targeted to support tissue-specific cell functions including adhesion, growth, differentiation, motility, and the expression of tissue-specific genes. Four decades of extensive research on the structure and biological influence of the extracellular matrix (ECM) on cell behavior and cell fate have shown that three types of information from the ECM are relevant for the design of biomimetic surfaces: (1) physical properties (elasticity, stiffness, resilience of the cellular environment), (2) specific chemical signals from peptide epitopes contained in a wide variety of extracellular matrix molecules, and (3) the nanoscale topography of microenvironmental adhesive sites. Initial physical and chemical approaches aimed at improving the adhesiveness of biomaterial surfaces by sandblasting, particle coating, or etching have been supplemented by attempts to increase the bioactivity of biomaterials by coating them with ECM macromolecules, such as fibronectin, elastin, laminin, and collagens, or their integrin-binding epitopes including RGD, YIGSR, and GFOGER. Recently, the development of new nanotechnologies such as photo- or electron-beam nanolithography, polymer demixing, nano-imprinting, compression molding, or the generation of TiO(2) nanotubes of defined diameters (15-200 nm), has opened up the possibility of constructing biomimetic surfaces with a defined nanopattern, eliciting tissue-specific cellular responses by stimulating integrin clustering. This development has provided new input into the design of novel biomaterials. The new technologies allowing the construction of a geometrically defined microenvironment for cells at the nanoscale should facilitate the investigation of nanotopography-dependent mechanisms of integrin-mediated cell signaling.

show abstract

Section: Physical and Chemical Surface Modificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanoscale engineering of biomimetic surfaces: cues from the extracellular matrix

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, the main idea behind texturing the implant is to maximize surface area and BIC, thus, it is indicated in regions with poor bone quality [71]. So far, three levels have been defined: macro, micro, and nano [72].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

SF Dent Oral Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and BackgroundBy the 1990's, Branemark's concept made such an impact in clinical dentistry that mainstream clinicians and public acceptance rose significantly to the extent that it adumbrated all other protocols and systems, specifically one-piece (1P) implants. Improper clinical documentation, inclination towards reports of failed cases, and lack of university based implantology programs accelerated the isolation of the alternative approaches. Failure reports are not scientifically sufficient and conclusive enough to

show abstract

“…17 In the cases of insufficient bone quantity or anatomical limitations, short designed implants with a rough surface have demonstrated superior clinical outcomes than smooth surfaces. 18,19 Numerous studies have shown that surface roughness in this range resulted in greater bone-to-implant contact and higher resistance to torque removal than other types of surface topography. 12,14 These reports have demonstrated that titanium implants with roughened surfaces have greater contact with bone than titanium implants with smoother surfaces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro Comparison between Two Different Implant Titanium Surfaces in Osseointegration Process

Ballini¹,

Desiate²,

Cantore³

2012

International Journal of Experimental Dental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The osseointegration rate of titanium dental implants is related to their composition and surface roughness. Rough-surfaced implants favor both bone anchoring and biomechanical stability.The future of dental implantology should aim to develop surfaces with controlled and standardized topography or chemistry.This approach will be the only way to understand the interactions between proteins, cells and tissues and implant surfaces. The local release of bone stimulating or resorptive drugs in the peri-implant region may also respond to difficult clinical situations with poor bone quality and quantity, such as implant design and surface. These therapeutic strategies should ultimately enhance the osseointegration process of dental implants for their immediate loading and long-term success. Aim of this work was to compare implant titanium surfaces prepared with two different topographies for evaluating osteoblasts adhesion and growth.

show abstract

Guided Bone Regeneration Around Titanium Plasma‐Sprayed, Acid‐Etched, and Hydroxyapatite‐Coated Implants in the Canine Model

Abstract: In this study, the bone-to-implant contact in regenerated bone was greatest when an HA-coated implant was used.

Cited by 36 publications

References 28 publications

Nanoscale engineering of biomimetic surfaces: cues from the extracellular matrix

Nanoscale engineering of biomimetic surfaces: cues from the extracellular matrix

Untitled

In vitro Comparison between Two Different Implant Titanium Surfaces in Osseointegration Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About