Histomorphometric and removal torque analysis for TiO₂hyphen;blasted titanium implants. An experimental study on dogs.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the anchorage of TiO2-blasted screw and cylindrical implants with conventionally used machine-produced screw and cylindrical implants inserted immediately in extraction sockets on dogs. 6 adult mongrel dogs had 3rd and 4th mandibular premolars extracted bilaterally and 24 commercial pure titanium implants were placed immediately in extraction sockets and covered with mucoperiosteum. Each dog had inserted 4 implants: 1 screw implant and 1 cylindrical implant blasted with titanium-dioxide-particles; 1 screw implant and 1 cylindrical implant with machine-produced (m.p.) surface (controls). After a healing period of 12 weeks, 16 implants from 4 animals were used for removal torque test, which demonstrated that significantly higher removal torque force was needed to unscrew the implants blasted with titanium-dioxide-particles, than the normal m.p. implants. The medians for the TiO2-blasted screw and cylindrical implants were > 150 Ncm and 105 Ncm, respectively, while the values for the m.p. implants were 60 Ncm and 35 Ncm, respectively. The SEM investigation demonstrated a high irregularity of the TiO2-blasted surface compared to the machined surface. The Ra and Rz values for surface roughness were higher for the TiO2-blasted implants than for the normal m.p. implants. Histomorphometrically, the arithmetic mean of the direct bone-implant contact fraction was 69%. There was no significant difference in direct bone-implant contact length fraction between TiO2-blasted implants and the control implants. The implants blasted with titanium-dioxide-particles in this study showed a better anchorage than implants with a machine-produced surface. The screw implants showed a better anchorage than the cylindrical implants.

3D, chemical and electrochemical characterization of blasted TI6Al4V surfaces: Its influence on the corrosion behaviour

“…The in vivo tests have also confirmed that roughness promotes a better bone fixation to titanium implants [5,6]. Osteoblasts have a higher probability to adhere to a rough titanium surface while fibroblasts and epithelial cells adhere mainly to very smooth surfaces [7,8]. In the literature, it has been suggested that these findings can be explained by considering that a rough implant enhances both the stress transfer and the mechanical interlocking between bone and implant.…”

“…Of all of them, perhaps the most widely used process to increase the surface roughness of Titanium and its alloys has been the blasting process [5][6][7][8][9][10]10,11]. In the blasting process, abrasive particles (alumina, rutile, SiC, ZrO 2 , SiO 2, or hydroxyapatite) are forced against the surface by a dragging fluid (usually compressed air but it can also be wet) at a fixed pressure for a certain time.…”

Application of Finite Element Analysis in Implant Dentistry

“…The influence of these surface modifications on BIC and cell attachment are still being investigated for a stronger osseointegration level between implant body and bone. Comparative studies show different BIC levels changing from 13% to 80% percent [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]. BIC values may change according to the jaw, placement of the region of the implant, healing time, implant design, and surface structure [64,69,70,[72][73][74].…”

THE EFFECT OF SURFACE PORE SIZE ON THE DIFFERENTIATION OF RAT BONE MARROW CELLS: MORPHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS AND EXPRESSION OF BONE RELATED PROTEIN mRNA

“…It is well known that osseointegration is the key to successful dental implantation 1) and is in part regulated by the implant surface geometry 3,11) . Many previous studies have compared the influence of the surface geometry of materials on cell behavior and the characteristics of dental implants using in vivo and/or in vitro model systems to simulate the implant surface in situ 2,4,5,13,14,16,17,19,31) .…”

“…Many previous studies have compared the influence of the surface geometry of materials on cell behavior and the characteristics of dental implants using in vivo and/or in vitro model systems to simulate the implant surface in situ 2,4,5,13,14,16,17,19,31) . The characteristics of the surface geometry influence cell attachment, orientation, and subsequent tissue integration in vivo 10,11,13,14,[32][33][34][35] . Much information on the interactions between cells and materials has been gained from in vitro studies using various approaches to examine the influence of surface characteristics on cell behavior; such research helps in understanding events that occur in vivo.…”