Interaction between Different Implant Surfaces and Liquid Fibrinogen: A Pilot In Vitro Experiment

Abstract

Background. Platelet concentrates like leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) have been widely evaluated in different oral surgical procedures to promote the healing process. However, liquid L-PRF products such as liquid fibrinogen have been poorly explored, especially in the biomimetic functionalization of dental implants. The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the interaction between 5 different dental implant surfaces and liquid fibrinogen. Methods. Five commercially available dental implants with different surfaces (Osseospeed™, TiUnite™, SLActive®, Ossean®, and Plenum®) were immersed for 60 minutes in liquid fibrinogen obtained from healthy donors. After this period, the implants were removed and fixed for scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results. All dental implants were covered by a fibrin mesh. However, noticeable noncontact areas were observed for the Osseospeed™, TiUnite™, and SLActive® surfaces. On the other hand, Ossean® and Plenum® surfaces showed a dense and uniform layer of fibrin covering almost the entire implant surface. The Osseospeed™, TiUnite™, and SLActive® surfaces presented with lower blood cell numbers inside the fibrin mesh compared with the others. Moreover, at higher magnification, thicker fibrin fibers were observed in contact with Ossean® and Plenum® surfaces. The Plenum ®surface showed the thickest fibers which also inserted and interconnect to the microroughness. Conclusion. The initial contact between an implant surface and the fibrin network differs significantly among different implant brands. Further studies are necessary to explore the clinical impact of these observations in the osseointegration process of dental implants.

Surface Matters Than the Implant Itself-a Review

“…Additional heat treatment can help to modify the configuration and composition of this layer. If alkali treatment is done after acid etching, the resulting surface has increased porosity [2].…”

“…Aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 ), as well as zirconium oxide (ZrO 2 ), exhibits high biostability and can be used as implant material. However, alumina possesses higher surface wettability whereas zirconium offers the advantage of less plaque accumulation [2].A bioactive ceramic biomaterial is bioglass (SiO 2 -CaO-Na 2 O-P 2 O 5 -MgO) because it stimulates bone formation. Al 2 O 3 dental implants have been withdrawn from the market due to their poor survival rate, whereas zirconium is a distinctive material of choice, even under high occlusal forces.…”

“…Aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 ), as well as zirconium oxide (ZrO 2 ), exhibits high biostability and can be used as implant material. However, alumina possesses higher surface wettability whereas zirconium offers the advantage of less plaque accumulation [2].…”

Posterior rehabilitation using 3D-printed dental implants and synthetic regenerative membranes

“…This implant has surface characteristics that mimic the microstructure of the bone trabeculae and thus, on micro/nanotopographic scales, have high surface energy, improving wettability, favoring the diffusion and adhesion of fibrin and protein matrix [24]. These surface characteristics can also modulate cell behavior and stimulate their proliferation and differentiation [25].…”

“…These conditions may present vertical bone defects that make rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants impossible or difficult [2]. To overcome these conditions, new implant geometries allow their stability in minimal bone remnants and the development of new surfaces favor osseointegration, minimizing the stability drop between primary and secondary stability [3,4].…”