Comparison of early osseointegration between laser-treated/acid-etched and sandblasted/acid-etched titanium implant surfaces
- 211 Downloads
This study was designed to compare the early osseointegration of titanium surfaces prepared via laser-treated/acid-etched (LA) and sandblasted/acid-etched (SLA) in dogs. Titanium implants were divided into two groups: Surfaces of the experimental group were treated via LA, while in the control group, surfaces were treated via SLA. The physical and chemical properties of LA and SLA surfaces were tested and compared. Sixteen implants with LA or SLA surfaces were placed into the tibias of four beagle dogs, each treatment group received two implants per single tibia. The dogs were sacrificed two and four weeks after implant placement. Scanning electron microscopy showed that both the LA and SLAs surface exhibited rough structures with micro pores sized 1–3 μm. In the LA surface, regular melting points were observed. However, in the SLA surface, the structure was irregular and few oxide aluminum particles still remained. Only titanium and a small amount of titanium compounds were detected on LA surfaces, while Al was found of SLA surfaces. The LA surface roughness was above that of SLA surfaces (LA: Ra: 2.1 μm; SLA: Ra :1.53 μm; P < 0.01). Both groups exhibited good osseointegration and no significant differences were found in the BIC% at two or four weeks between both groups (P > 0.05). Both groups exhibited good osseointegration; however, the LA surface was cleaner and more uniform than the SLA surface, and no significant differences were found between both groups.
This work was supported by Stomatological Hospital, Southern Medical University and grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China (81170998) and the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2014A030310146).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Bornstein MM, Lussi A, Schmid B, Belser UC, Buser D. Early loading of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: 3-year results of a prospective study in partially edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:659–66.Google Scholar
- 3.Cochran DL, Buser D, Ten BC, Weingart D, Taylor TM, Bernard JP, Peters F, Simpson JP. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:144–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Levine RA, Sendi P, Bornstein MM. Immediate restoration of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: five-year results of a prospective case series study using clinical and radiographic data.[J]. Int J Periodontics & Restor Dent. 2012;32:39–47.Google Scholar
- 7.Ying XD, Li WS, Feng LZ. Technology of laser surfacing modification and development situation domestically and abroad. Weld Join. 2003;1:5–8.Google Scholar
- 8.Hsu SH, Liu BS, Lin WH, Chiang HC, Huang SC, Cheng SS. Characterization and biocompatibility of a titanium dental implant with a laser irradiated and dual-acid etched surface. Biomed Mater Eng. 2007;17:53–68.Google Scholar
- 12.Stubinger S, Etter C, Miskiewicz M, Homann F, Saldamli B, Wieland M, Sader R. Surface alterations of polished and sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implants after Er:YAG, carbon dioxide, and diode laser irradiation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:104–11.Google Scholar
- 18.Sammer P, He W, Daniel C, Dahotre NB. Laser process effects on physical texture and wetting in implantable Ti-alloys. JOM J Miner, Met Mater Soc. 2010;62:76–83.Google Scholar
- 20.Davies JE. Mechanisms of endosseous integration. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11:391–401.Google Scholar