The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Histologic evaluation and removal torque analysis of nano- and microtreated titanium implants in the dogs

  • Ahn, Seok (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate school, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Vang, Mong-Sook (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate school, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Yang, Hong-So (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate school, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Park, Sang-Won (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate school, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Lim, Hyun-Pil (Department of Prosthodontics, Graduate school, Chonnam National University)
  • Published : 2009.07.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. A number of studies about the nano-treated surfaces of implants have been conducting along with micro-treated surfaces of implants. PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to get information for the clinical use of nano-treated surfaces compared with micro-treated surfaces by measuring removal torque and analyzing histological characteristics after the placement of various surface-treated implants on femurs of dogs. MATERIAL AND METHODS. Machined surface implants were used as a control group. 4 nano-treated surface implants and 3 micro-treated surface implants [resorbable blast media surface (RBM), sandblast and acid-etched surface (SAE), anodized RBM surface] were used as experimental groups. Removal torque values of implants were measured respectively and the histological analyses were conducted on both 4weeks and 8weeks after implant surgery. The surfaces of removed implants after measuring removal torque values were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at 8 weeks. RESULTS. 1. Removal torque values of the nano-treated groups were lower than those of micro-treated groups. 2. Removal torque values were similar in the anodized RBM surface groups. 3. On the histological views, there was much of bone formation at 8 weeks, but there was no difference between 4 and 8 weeks, and between the types of implant surfaces as well. CONCLUSION. it is suggested that implant topography is more effective in removal torque test than surface chemistry. To get better clinical result, further studies should be fulfilled on the combined effect of surface topography and chemistry for the implant surface treatments.

Keywords

References

  1. Li DH, Liu BL, Zou JC, Xu KW. Improvement of osseointegration of titanium dental implants by a modified sandblasting surface treatment: an in vivo interfacial biomechanics study. Implant Dent 1999;8:289-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199903000-00014
  2. Buser D, Schenk RK, Steinemann S, Fiorellini JP, Fox CH, Stich H. Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of titanium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. J Biomed Mater Res 1991;25:889-902. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820250708
  3. Bowers KT, Keller JC, Randolph BA, Wick DG, Michaels CM. Optimization of surface micromorphology for enhanced osteoblast responses in vitro. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:302-10.
  4. Brunette DM. The effects of implant surface topography on the behavior of cells. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:231-46.
  5. Mustafa K, Silva Lopez B, Hultenby K, Wennerberg A, Arvidson K. Attachment and proliferation of human oral fibroblasts to titanium surfaces blasted with $TiO_2$ particles. A scanning electron microscopic and histomorphometric analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:195-207. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090307.x
  6. Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Integration of screw implants in the rabbit: a 1-year follow-up of removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:69-75.
  7. Han CH, Johansson CB, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Quantitative and qualitative investigations of surface enlarged titanium and titanium alloy implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1998.090101.x
  8. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andersson B. Experimental study of turned and grit-blasted screw-shaped implants with special emphasis on effects of blasting material and surface topography. Biomaterials 1996;17:15-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(96)80750-2
  9. Ericsson I, Johansson CB, Bystedt H, Norton MR. A histomorphometric evaluation of bone-to-implant contact on machine-prepared and roughened titanium dental implants. A pilot study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:202-6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050402.x
  10. Larsson C, Thomsen P, Aronsson BO, Rodahl M, Lausmaa J, Kasemo B, Ericson LE. Bone response to surface-modified titanium implants: studies on the early tissue response to machined and electropolished implants with different oxide thicknesses. Biomaterials 1996;17:605-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(96)88711-4
  11. Sul YT, Johansson CB, Jeong Y, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Resonance frequency and removal torque analysis of implants with turned and anodized surface oxides. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:252-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130304.x
  12. Letic-Gavrilovic A, Scandurra R, Abe K. Genetic potential of interfacial guided osteogenesis in implant devices. Dent Mater J 2000;19:99-132. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.19.99
  13. Novaes AB Jr, Souza SL, de Oliveira PT, Souza AM. Histomorphometric analysis of the bone-implant contact obtained with 4 different implant surface treatments placed side by side in the dog mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:377-83.
  14. Ivanoff CJ, Hallgren C, Widmark G, Sennerby L, Wennerberg A. Histologic evaluation of the bone integration of TiO(2) blasted and turned titanium microimplants in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:128-34. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012002128.x
  15. Ivanoff CJ, Widmark G, Johansson C, Wennerberg A. Histologic evaluation of bone response to oxidized and turned titanium micro-implants in human jawbone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:341-8.
  16. Sul YT. The significance of the surface properties of oxidized titanium to the bone response: special emphasis on potential biochemical bonding of oxidized titanium implant. Biomaterials 2003;24:3893-907. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00261-8
  17. Thomas KA, Kay JF, Cook SD, Jarcho M. The effect of surface macrotexture and hydroxylapatite coating on the mechanical strengths and histologic profiles of titanium implant materials. J Biomed Mater Res 1987;21:1395-414. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820211205
  18. Carlsson L, Ro ¨stlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T. Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1988;3:21-4.
  19. Webster TJ, Ergun C, Doremus RH, Siegel RW, Bizios R. Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. Biomaterials 2000;21:1803-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00075-2
  20. Webster TJ, Schadler LS, Siegel RW, Bizios R. Mechanisms of enhanced osteoblast adhesion on nanophase alumina involve vitronectin. Tissue Eng 2001;7:291-301. https://doi.org/10.1089/10763270152044152
  21. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Lang NP, Lindhe J. De novo alveolar bone formation adjacent to endosseous implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:251-62. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00972.x
  22. Ericsson I, Johansson CB, Bystedt H, Norton MR. A histomorphometric evaluation of bone-to-implant contact on machine-prepared and roughened titanium dental implants. A pilot study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:202-6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050402.x
  23. Schatzker J, Horne JG, Sumner-Smith G. The effect of movement on the holding power of screws in bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975;111:257-62. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197509000-00032
  24. Albrektsson T, Lekholm U. Osseointegration: current state of the art. Dent Clin North Am 1989;33:537-54.
  25. Misch CE. Density of bone: effect on treatment plans, surgical approach, healing, and progressive boen loading. Int J Oral Implantol 1990;6:23-31.
  26. Glauser R, Lundgren AK, Gottlow J, Sennerby L, Portmann M, Ruhstaller P, Hammerle CH. Immediate occlusal loading of Branemark TiUnite implants placed predominantly in soft bone: 1-year results of a prospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:47-56.
  27. Olsson M, Urde G, Andersen JB, Sennerby L. Early loading of maxillary fixed cross-arch dental prostheses supported by six or eight oxidized titanium implants: results after 1 year of loading, case series. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5:81-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00019.x
  28. Oh SH, Finones RR, Daraio C, Chen LH, Jin S. Growth of nanoscale hydroxyapatite using chemically treated titanium oxide nanotubes. Biomaterials 2005;26:4938-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.048
  29. Karlsson M, Palsgard E, Wilshaw PR, Di Silvio L. Initial in vitro interaction of osteoblasts with nano-porous alumina. Biomaterials 2003;24:3039-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00146-7

Cited by

  1. Evaluation of Early Bone Response to Fluoride-Modified and Anodically Oxidized Titanium Implants Through Continuous Removal Torque Analysis vol.21, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31826917f6
  2. Removal torque analysis of chemically modified hydrophilic and anodically oxidized titanium implants with constant angular velocity for early bone response in rabbit tibia vol.10, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-012-1086-1
  3. Effect of Locally Applied bFGF on Implant Stability vol.23, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000104
  4. Effect of Surface Nanotopography on Bone Response to Titanium Implant vol.42, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-14-00254