Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dental implant surfaces after insertion in bone: an in vitro study in four commercial implant systems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Primary healing of dental implants is influenced by their surface morphology. However, little is known about any alterations in morphology during their insertion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the surface morphology of four different implant systems, following their insertion in porcine jaw bones.

Methods

Four fresh porcine mandible specimens were used. Six new implants of four systems (Ankylos® 4.5 × 14 mm, Frialit Synchro® 4.5 × 15 mm, NobelReplace ® Tapered Groovy RP 4.3 × 13 mm, Straumann SLA® Bone Level 3.3 × 14 mm) were inserted, whereas one implant of each system served as a control. After their removal, implants were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath. All 28 implants were examined quantitatively by 3D confocal microscopy for surface characteristics.

Results

In the evaluated zones, implants of the Ankylos, Frialit, and Straumann systems showed mostly a reduction of the mean surface roughness Sa, the maximal surface roughness Sz, and the developed surface area ratio Sdr; Nobel implants showed an increase in these parameters. With respect to all three parameters Sa, Sz, and Sdr, statistical analysis revealed that differences between the four systems were highly significant in the apical region of implants. Controls showed no morphologic alterations.

Conclusion

The insertion process had an impact on the surface of all four implant systems. Anodized implant surface modification seems to result in more alterations compared with subtractive surface modifications. Therefore, surgical planning should take into consideration the choice of surface treatment because the characteristics of the implants may be modified during the installation process.

Clinical relevance

The given information is of value for daily implantation practice and the course of osseointegration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thomason JM et al (2009) Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients—the York consensus statement. Br Dent J 207(4):185–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mints D et al (2014) Integrity of implant surface modifications after insertion. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29(1):97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Albrektsson T et al (1981) Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand 52(2):155–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ruger M et al (2010) The removal of Al2O3 particles from grit-blasted titanium implant surfaces: effects on biocompatibility, osseointegration and interface strength in vivo. Acta Biomater 6(7):2852–2861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mata A et al (2003) Osteoblast attachment to a textured surface in the absence of exogenous adhesion proteins. IEEE Trans Nanobioscience 2(4):287–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi JW et al (2006) Biological responses of anodized titanium implants under different current voltages. J Oral Rehabil 33(12):889–897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Deppe H et al (2015) Surface morphology analysis of dental implants following insertion into bone using scanning electron microscopy: a pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(11):1261–1266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pawley J (2006) Handbook of biological confocal microscopy, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Sartoretto SC et al (2015) Early osseointegration driven by the surface chemistry and wettability of dental implants. J Appl Oral Sci 23(3):279–287

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T (2000) Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15(3):331–344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Arvidsson A, Sater BA, Wennerberg A (2006) The role of functional parameters for topographical characterization of bone-anchored implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 8(2):70–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brown CA, Johnsen WA, Hult KM (1998) Scale-sensitivity, fractual analysis and simulations. Int J Mach Tools Manufact 38:633–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Misch CE (1999) Bone density: a key determinant for clinical success. In: Misch CE (ed) Contemporary implant dentistry, 2nd edn. CV Mosby Company, St Louis

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cooper LF (2000) A role for surface topography in creating and maintaining bone at titanium endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 84(5):522–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Trisi P et al (2003) Bone-implant contact on machined and dual acid-etched surfaces after 2 months of healing in the human maxilla. J Periodontol 74(7):945–956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pak HS, Yeo IS, Yang JH (2010) A histomorphometric study of dental implants with different surface characteristics. J Adv Prosthodont 2(4):142–147

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Bouwman JP, Tuinzing DB, Kostense PJ (1994) A comparative in vitro study on fixation of sagittal split osteotomies with Wurzburg screws, Champy miniplates, and biofix (biodegradable) rods. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 23(1):46–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mosekilde L (1995) Assessing bone quality—animal models in preclinical osteoporosis research. Bone 17(4 Suppl):343S–352S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wennerberg A et al (1995) A histomorphometric and removal torque study of screw-shaped titanium implants with three different surface topographies. Clin Oral Implants Res 6(1):24–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ballo AM et al (2011) Dental implant surfaces—physicochemical properties, biological performance, and trends. In: Turkyilmaz PI (ed) Implant dentistry—a rapidly evolving practice. InTech

  21. Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2004) Oral implant surfaces: part 1—review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 17(5):536–543

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wennerberg A et al (1992) An optical three-dimensional technique for topographical descriptions of surgical implants. J Biomed Eng 14(5):412–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wennerberg A et al (1997) A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12(4):486–494

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Andersson B (1996) Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11(1):38–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wennerberg A et al (2004) Titanium release from implants prepared with different surface roughness. Clin Oral Implants Res 15(5):505–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Valente ML, Lepri CP, dos Reis AC (2014) In vitro microstructural analysis of dental implants subjected to insertion torque and pullout test. Braz Dent J 25(4):343–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Guan H et al (2009) Influence of bone and dental implant parameters on stress distribution in the mandible: a finite element study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24(5):866–876

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schliephake H et al (1993) Metal release from titanium fixtures during placement in the mandible: an experimental study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 8(5):502–511

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goodman SB, Ma T (2010) Cellular chemotaxis induced by wear particles from joint replacements. Biomaterials 31(19):5045–5050

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Bukata SV et al (2004) PGE2 and IL-6 production by fibroblasts in response to titanium wear debris particles is mediated through a Cox-2 dependent pathway. J Orthop Res 22(1):6–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tanaka M et al (1994) Effects of bone tapping on osseointegration of screw dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9:541–547

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work was not funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Herbert Deppe, Florian Bauer & Ricarda Ruthenberg

  2. Department of Oral and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Carolina Wolff

  3. Department of Periodontology, University of Berne, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010, Berne, Switzerland

    Anton Sculean

  4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Plastic Surgery, St. Josefshospital, Uerdingen, Krefeld, Germany

    Thomas Mücke

Authors
  1. Herbert Deppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carolina Wolff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florian Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ricarda Ruthenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anton Sculean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Mücke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Herbert Deppe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deppe, H., Wolff, C., Bauer, F. et al. Dental implant surfaces after insertion in bone: an in vitro study in four commercial implant systems. Clin Oral Invest 22, 1593–1600 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2262-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2262-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation