Comparative in vivo study of alloy titanium implants with two different surfaces: biomechanical and SEM analysis
- 34 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of the interface formed between bone and implants with machined surfaces (MS) and those modified by Al2O3 sandblasting and acid etching (SBAS).
Materials and methods
Before surgery, topographic characterization was performed by SEM-EDX and by mean roughness measurements. Ten Albinus rabbits received randomly 20 Ti-6Al-4V implants on its right and left tibiae, with one implant placed in each tibia. After implant insertion, the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA). After 3 and 6 weeks, the ISQ was again measured, followed by torque removal measurements. Analysis of variance and Tukey tests were used to analyze the data. The surface of the implants removed was evaluated by SEM-EDX. Immunohistochemical analysis of osteopontin (OPN) and osteocalcin (OC) protein was performed in bone tissue.
The topographic characterization showed differences between the analyzed surfaces, and the mean roughness values of SBAS group were statistically higher than MS. Overall, higher statistically significant ISQ values were observed in the SBAS group compared to the MS group (p = 0.012). The intra-group comparison of ISQ values in the SBAS group showed statistically significant differences between 0 and 3 weeks (p = 0.032) and 0 and 6 weeks (p = 0.003). The torque removal measurements of group SBAS were statistically higher when compared with the torque removal measurements of group MS in the time intervals of 3 weeks (p = 0.002) and 6 weeks (p < 0.001). SEM-EDX of the implant surfaces removed in SBAS group showed greater bone tissue covering and mean values atomic in percentage of Ca, P, and O statistically superior (p < 0.05) than MS group. Immunohistochemical reactions showed intense OC immunolabeling at 6 weeks postoperative for SBAS group.
The topographical modifications made in group SBAS allowed a better mechanical interlocking between the implant and bone tissue.
KeywordsBiomechanics Dental implant Osseointegration Surface modification
The authors would like to thank the Laboratory for the Study of Mineralized Tissues (LSMT) of the Araçatuba Dental of School-UNESP (FAPESP, 2012/159122-2; 2015/14688-0) from immunohistochemistry analysis, and would like to thank the Emfils Colosso Company for providing the implants used in this study.
This work was supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–CAPES, Universal-422842/2016-8.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Francisley Ávila Souza declares that he has no conflict of interest. Thayane Silveira Mata Furtado declares that she has no conflict of interest. Ulisses Ribeiro Campos Dayube declares that he has no conflict of interest. Willian Moraes Melo declares that he has no conflict of interest. Renato Sussumu Nishioka declares that he has no conflict of interest. Pier Paolo Poli declares that he has no conflict of interest. Carlo Maiorana declares that he has no conflict of interest. Paulo Sérgio Perri de Carvalhop declares that he has no conflict of interest.
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 4.Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR (1986) The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1:11–25Google Scholar
- 6.Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T (1990) Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 5:347–359Google Scholar
- 7.Carvalho PSP, Ponzoni D (2002) Aspectos biológicos da osseointegração. In: Gomes LA (ed) Implantes osseointegrados: técnica e arte. Ed. Santos, São Paulo, pp 1–9Google Scholar
- 9.Carvalho PSP, Carvalho MCA, Bassi APF (2016) Fundamentos da Osseointegração. In: Carvalho PSP, Pelizer EP (eds). Fundamentos em Implantodontia: uma visão contemporânea, 2 edn. pp 57–70Google Scholar
- 10.Davies JE (2003) Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. J Dent Educ 67:932–949Google Scholar
- 11.Davies JE, Hosseini MM (2000) Histodynamics of endosseous wound healing. In: Davies JE (ed) Bone engineering. Toronto, pp 1–14Google Scholar
- 14.Gittens RA, Olivares-Navarrete R, McLachlan T, Cai Y, Hyzy SL, Schneider JM, Schwartz Z, Sandhage KH, Boyan BD (2012) Differential responses of osteoblast lineage cells to nanotopographically-modified, microroughened titanium-aluminum-vanadium alloy surfaces. Biomaterials 33:8986–8994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Souza FA, Queiroz TP, Guastaldi AC, Garcia-Junior IR, Magro-Filho O, Nishioka RS, Sisti KE, Sonoda CK (2013) Comparative in vivo study of commercially pure Ti implants with surfaces modified by laser with and without silicate deposition: biomechanical and scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 101:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Buser D, Nydegger T, Hirt HP, Cochran DL, Nolte LP (1998) Removal torque values of titanium implants in the maxilla of miniature pigs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13:611–619Google Scholar
- 21.Piattelli A, Manzon L, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Piattelli M (1998) Histologic and histomorphometric analysis of the bone response to machined and sandblasted titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 13:805–810Google Scholar
- 26.Gehrke SA, Ramirez-Fernandez MP, Granero Marin JM, Barbosa Salles M, Del Fabbro M, Calvo Guirado JL (2016) A comparative evaluation between aluminium and titanium dioxide microparticles for blasting the surface titanium dental implants: an experimental study in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants ResGoogle Scholar
- 27.Queiroz TP, Souza FA, Guastaldi AC, Margonar R, Garcia-Junior IR, Hochuli-Vieira E (2013) Commercially pure titanium implants with surfaces modified by laser beam with and without chemical deposition of apatite. Biomechanical and topographical analysis in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:896–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Beier US, Strobl H, Dhima M (2014) Correction of esthetic and biomechanical outcomes after maxillary anterior single dental implant fracture: a case report. Compend Contin Educ Dent 35:e1–e5Google Scholar
- 30.Marcelo CG, Filie Haddad M, Gennari Filho H, Marcelo Ribeiro Villa L, Dos Santos DM, Aldieris AP (2014) Dental implant fractures - aetiology, treatment and case report. J Clin Diagn Res 8:300–304Google Scholar
- 32.Martinez-Gonzalez JM, Garcia-Saban F, Ferrandiz-Bernal J, Gonzalo-Lafuente JC, Cano-Sanchez J, Barona-Dorado C (2006) Removal torque and physico-chemical characteristics of dental implants etched with hydrofluoric and nitric acid. An experimental study in beagle dogs. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 11:E281–E285Google Scholar
- 34.Marinho VC, Celletti R, Bracchetti G, Petrone G, Minkin C, Piattelli A (2003) Sandblasted and acid-etched dental implants: a histologic study in rats. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:75–81Google Scholar
- 35.Souza FA, Queiroz TP, Sonoda CK, Okamoto R, Margonar R, Guastaldi AC, Nishioka RS, Garcia Junior IR (2014) Histometric analysis and topographic characterization of cp Ti implants with surfaces modified by laser with and without silica deposition. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 102:1677–1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Carlsson L, Rostlund T, Albrektsson B, Albrektsson T (1988) Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 3:21–24Google Scholar
- 37.Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Piattelli A, Scarano A (2000) Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:668–674Google Scholar
- 39.Sennerby L, Thomsen P, Ericson LE (1992) A morphometric and biomechanic comparison of titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical and cancellous bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 7:62–71Google Scholar
- 40.Lindgren C, Hallman M, Sennerby L, Sammons R (2010) Back-scattered electron imaging and elemental analysis of retrieved bone tissue following sinus augmentation with deproteinized bovine bone or biphasic calcium phosphate. Clin Oral Implants Res 21:924–930Google Scholar
- 41.Lozano-Carrascal N, Satorres-Nieto M, Delgado-Ruiz R, Maté-Sánchez de Val JE, Gehrke SA, Gargallo-Albiol J, Calvo-Guirado JL (2017) Scanning electron microscopy study of new bone formation following small and large defects preserved with xenografts supplemented with pamidronate-a pilot study in Fox-hound dogs at 4 and 8 weeks. Ann Anat 209:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Williams D (2001) The golden anniversary of titanium biomaterials. Med Device Technol 12:8–11Google Scholar
- 51.Sartori IAM, Thomé E, Bernardes SR, Tiossi R, Vieira RA, Souza RCM (2013) Clinical evaluation for immediate implant loading: final insertion torque versus resonance frequency analysis. ImplantNews 10:99–104Google Scholar
- 52.Avila Souza F, Pereira Queiroz T, Rodrigues Luvizuto E, Nishioka RS, Garcia IR Jr, de Carvalho PS, Okamoto R (2010) Rank protein Immunolabeling during bone-implant Interface healing process. Int J DentGoogle Scholar
- 55.Nagata M, Messora M, Okamoto R, Campos N, Pola N, Esper L, Sbrana M, Fucini S, Garcia V, Bosco A (2009) Influence of the proportion of particulate autogenous bone graft/platelet-rich plasma on bone healing in critical-size defects: an immunohistochemical analysis in rat calvaria. Bone 45:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar